Have people's concepts of normal become too fat?
Replies
-
I agree with what a lot of people on here have said.
I often thought to myself when I went out to a clothing store and bought a size 4 pants (obviously vanity size) and a size S or XS shirt.. "What do the people skinnier than me wear?" It seems like clothing sizes are made bigger to accommodate the average sizes we are. It makes bigger people feel good to say they wear a certain size- say a size 8- when maybe five years ago that size 8 would've been a size 12.
I think that people who don't want to workout or eat right want justification for the way they still look. That's what brings on this "real women have curves" stuff. I love women with curves, but healthy curves. Healthiness is sexy.
I think that so many women are insecure about themselves and inadvertently put down others to make them feel better. This brings on the passive aggressive bashing such as "real women have curves". Women are real, no matter what they look like.0 -
I disagree. I think the real problem is the exact opposite, that people's concepts of normal are far, far too thin (at least for women) due to size 0 models and actresses. The debate over the Special K actress is a perfect example of that. The only reason anyone would think this woman is fat: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/14/article-0-139B1B8A000005DC-690_306x531.jpg
Is because they're used to seeing things like this: http://fametastic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/keira_knightley_premiere.jpg
no... i not one for looking at images in womens magazines.
Its common sense that someone who has an hour glass fit shape and moves with elegance (that is sadly lacking in the uk) is more attractive hands down over someone who has let themselves go in those departments - from a normal males point of view although i do aknowledge their are strange men around that activley seek out or settle for for the latter.0 -
I suppose as everyone gets bigger, the (now larger) average becomes 'normal'.
Living in London, it is rarer to see very overweight people. When I go to see family in the north of England, I notice that the average person is heavier, and that there are a lot of very overweight people.
I agree with other posters about the whole 'curves' nonsense. A big tummy/rolls of fat aren't 'curves' - or if they are, I aim to be curve-less!
It's a shame that we as a society (I have been guilty of this in the past) make excuses and conveniently shift our perspectives to suit our own overeating/lack of exercise, rather than objectively see what a healthy size/weight should be and take responsibility for our own health.0 -
I think its a problem and is in essence is no different from the "too thin" image everyone is concerned about. People should not be encouraged to be overweight anymore than they should be encouraged be underweight. Normal defined as an average UK or US woman (size 14/16) is overweight. Normal as defined as a healthy weight would be fine, but that's not typically what we see. Its skewed to one end or the other.0
-
So sick of real women have curves. Real women have vaginas.0
-
So sick of real women have curves. Real women have vaginas.
That's quite rude to trans women who might not have one. Real women identify as women.0 -
So sick of real women have curves. Real women have vaginas.
That's quite rude to trans women who might not have one. Real women identify as women.
I was about to say the same thing. Real women call themselves women. Reproductive organs are a moot point.0 -
I don't know about the UK, but it's definitely true in the U.S. I've read more than one article saying that one reason people are obese is because they've lost touch with what is a normal weight. Some folks here jump to silly conclusions. They automatically accuse people below a certain weight of being anorexic or "low calorie nutters" without knowing anything about the person's build, weight history, or age, among other relevant factors.0
-
Living in London, it is rarer to see very overweight people.
The same is true in New York.0 -
I think that we have become increasingly concerned with aesthetics over the value of a healthy lifestyle. We have an unhealthy body image, yet we are less active and we eat way more crap than our grandparents did. Doesn't make any sense. As long as a person is eating well and exercising, then who cares if they look good in a bikini? And who are we to judge?0
-
So sick of real women have curves. Real women have vaginas.
This bigoted nonsense right here is just as bad as 'Real women have curves'.
Ummmm... what?0 -
If vanity sizing in a clue, then yes- our perceptions of fat vs thin on the people around us have changed. I wear a 12 jean now, which is supposedly smaller than what I wore in High School 15-20 years ago, but it's really not. I looked at a few pics of myself from back then, and I'm still a bit larger. Not to mention that size 0 pair of jeans I held up in Kohl's the other day looked oddly similar in size to a friend's size 6 from 10 years ago...
Interestingly, I was probably a healthy BMI in High School but I was getting "you should lose weight" speech a lot from doctors, Dad and a handful of friends. When I was 240 more recently, no one seemed to think it was odd or unhealthy. In fact, when I told a few people how large I was, I got odd looks and "really? I didn't think you were that fat" comments. Now, it could have been more to do with the fact that I lived in Los Angeles then and The South now, but I'm leaning more towards perception.0 -
I rather suspect it's actually that our idea of 'ideal weight/body shape' has become too thin. The 'ideal' displayed by Hollywood, the music and print media industries is actually representative of an underweight or very-low-range 'normal' BMI*, in most cases (I'm speaking predominantly of females here), with a very low body fat percentage (unhealthily low for women of childbearing age in many cases) and reflects (again, in general) a physique that is only physically-achievable by less than 5% of the population.
The 'ideal' figures of most of the last century were much, much closer to the 'average' female form, and were achievable or at least emulatable in a healthy way by more women, thus the contrast between 'ideal' and 'realistic' was much less startling. Compare celebrities of the past such as Ava Gardner, Sophia Loren, Jayne Russell, Doris Day or Marilyn Monroe to Reese Witherspoon, Kristen Stewart, Anne Hathaway et al, and this becomes evident very quickly. Even a young Meryl Streep or Diane Keaton was much closer to 'average' in size than the current crop of ultra-thin actresses.
*Which is not a good measure of individual health, but this isn't the place to go into that!
You were saying?
There were plenty of slender celebrities in the last century, and there are plenty of large celebrities today. Aside from fashion models for a brief period in the last decade (they've got bigger again now), the ideal aesthetic hasn't got any smaller. We've just got bigger. (See vanity sizing!)
One or two exceptions to the rule does not prove your point. I'm talking about the standard 'ideal' of Hollywood, both then and now. As you say, there are a handful (I'm not sure about 'plenty') of larger successful actresses/singers/celebrities now - Kate Winslet, Adele, Queen Latifah, to choose varied examples of women who have succeeded despite being larger than the standard 'ideal' in their industry. Similarly, in earlier years, there were a few who succeeded in spite of not matching the 'ideal' aesthetic of the time. Hepburn was exceptionally petite and boyishly-figured for a star of the period - "too skinny " was the judgement of more than one studio executive. Look at the majority of stars around her, or any other very-petite actress of the 20th Century up until the 'waif' look of the 90's arrived, and you will see a much less-thin prevailing aesthetic than the one we have now, even in the 60's when Twiggy's look was changing the fashion world.0 -
To state that real women have vaginas basically discounts trans women and the issues they face in society. You're calling them 'fake' women with your statement, which is extremely bigoted and just as bad as large or curvy women saying that their smaller or less curvy counterparts aren't real women.So sick of real women have curves. Real women have vaginas.
This bigoted nonsense right here is just as bad as 'Real women have curves'.
Ummmm... what?0 -
I can't believe anyone would find that woman in the red bathing suit fat. When I clicked on the link, I expected to find a borderline overweight woman, who could be considered chubby or "thick" by the average person, and instead found a woman who looks like she is at most a 22 on the BMI scale.0
-
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best and perhaps 3 girls out of 50 were "fat". They all ran track and looked like young girls.
I attended my niece's high school basketball game last month: things have changed. Boys and girls are about 20 lbs heavier now. Back in the 80's, about 1/4 of all guys could run a 70 sec 1/4 mile... without training. Looks like they'd die trying now. They just don't see what's happening.
I've been trying to think of a nice way to introduce my graduating niece to MFP... without hurting her feelings.0 -
One or two exceptions to the rule does not prove your point. I'm talking about the standard 'ideal' of Hollywood, both then and now. As you say, there are a handful (I'm not sure about 'plenty') of larger successful actresses/singers/celebrities now - Kate Winslet, Adele, Queen Latifah, to choose varied examples of women who have succeeded despite being larger than the standard 'ideal' in their industry. Similarly, in earlier years, there were a few who succeeded in spite of not matching the 'ideal' aesthetic of the time. Hepburn was exceptionally petite and boyishly-figured for a star of the period - "too skinny " was the judgement of more than one studio executive. Look at the majority of stars around her, or any other very-petite actress of the 20th Century up until the 'waif' look of the 90's arrived, and you will see a much less-thin prevailing aesthetic than the one we have now, even in the 60's when Twiggy's look was changing the fashion world.
I'm not too up to date on modern celebrities, but if the names you mentioned in your original post are anything to go by, I still disagree with your point. Reese Witherspoon is pretty much the same size now as Marilyn Monroe was (both beautiful, and by no means tiny), Anne Hathaway is no smaller than Ava was, and Doris Day was pretty slim in her youth too. I agree Kristen Stewart is quite slim though, yes.
If we think they look smaller, it's only by comparison to the larger people who surround them. (Beyonce, Kim K and Nicki Minaj are ones I see quite a lot.) Or in the case of Ms Hathaway, she slimmed down to play a starving woman in a film, then went back to her usual weight, which is why people think she's very thin.
Someone nowadays who emulates a 50s style body is Dita von Teese, and I think you'll agree that she's in better shape than the majority of celebs we see now!0 -
yes definitely and vanity sizing has a LOT to answer for. Marylin Monroe was a size 16 and looked very slim compared to your average size 16 lady these days. I put on nearly four stone over the last decade and clothes sizes grew with me so I only went from a size 12-14 to a 14-16. People don't want the number on their clothes to go up so shops simply changed the numbers to keep an ever growing population happy so now in new look stores for example a size 18 is now a 16 and a size 16 is a 14 and so on down the line.0
-
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.0 -
Absolutely. If everyone around us is overweight we think it's okay.
My doctor told me to lose 15 pounds and when I told people this they said "you're not fat". My response was "I just don't look fat compared to everyone else". Everyone has excuses.0 -
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.
In my day all we had were B's... and we liked them! Now you kids get off my lawn :laugh:0 -
I'm not too up to date on modern celebrities, but if the names you mentioned in your original post are anything to go by, I still disagree with your point. Reese Witherspoon is pretty much the same size now as Marilyn Monroe was (both beautiful, and by no means tiny), Anne Hathaway is no smaller than Ava was, and Doris Day was pretty slim in her youth too. I agree Kristen Stewart is quite slim though, yes.
Marilyn Monroe would be a modern day size 6 (Not to mention she was 5'6). Reese Witherspoon is 5'1 and 95 pounds, according to the actress herself. I don't think anyone would call that the same size.
I will say Ava Gardner was a modern size 0, so I'm not sure where anyone gets the notion that she was anything but very small. Curvy and soft, yes, but very small.0 -
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.
If you're going to harp on people about not offending women, then maybe you shouldn't be just as offensive. There are still B cups in the world (such as myself), and you saying that sounds awful is offensive and rude. Practice what you preach or don't say anything.
As for the topic, I agree that views have been changing. A coworker of mine told my boyfriend I didn't need to lose weight when she found out I was watching what I'm eating. I was confused since I definitely have a belly to lose and consider myself fat. If I'm considered normal, something is wrong.
Also, I HATE vanity sizes! I hate never knowing what size to pick. I wish we would use inches like men's clothes!0 -
One or two exceptions to the rule does not prove your point. I'm talking about the standard 'ideal' of Hollywood, both then and now. As you say, there are a handful (I'm not sure about 'plenty') of larger successful actresses/singers/celebrities now - Kate Winslet, Adele, Queen Latifah, to choose varied examples of women who have succeeded despite being larger than the standard 'ideal' in their industry. Similarly, in earlier years, there were a few who succeeded in spite of not matching the 'ideal' aesthetic of the time. Hepburn was exceptionally petite and boyishly-figured for a star of the period - "too skinny " was the judgement of more than one studio executive. Look at the majority of stars around her, or any other very-petite actress of the 20th Century up until the 'waif' look of the 90's arrived, and you will see a much less-thin prevailing aesthetic than the one we have now, even in the 60's when Twiggy's look was changing the fashion world.
I'm not too up to date on modern celebrities, but if the names you mentioned in your original post are anything to go by, I still disagree with your point. Reese Witherspoon is pretty much the same size now as Marilyn Monroe was (both beautiful, and by no means tiny), Anne Hathaway is no smaller than Ava was, and Doris Day was pretty slim in her youth too. I agree Kristen Stewart is quite slim though, yes.
If we think they look smaller, it's only by comparison to the larger people who surround them. (Beyonce, Kim K and Nicki Minaj are ones I see quite a lot.) Or in the case of Ms Hathaway, she slimmed down to play a starving woman in a film, then went back to her usual weight, which is why people think she's very thin.
Someone nowadays who emulates a 50s style body is Dita von Teese, and I think you'll agree that she's in better shape than the majority of celebs we see now!
We'll have to agree to disagree, then - I rather suspect Ms Witherspoon would be appalled at being compared to Monroe on the basis of her physique! Slender, or slim, is very subjective, and bears little resemblance to Hollywood-skinny, in my opinion. Nonetheless, I have rather a lot of other things to do today, so I'm off!0 -
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.
If you're going to harp on people about not offending women, then maybe you shouldn't be just as offensive. There are still B cups in the world (such as myself), and you saying that sounds awful is offensive and rude. Practice what you preach or don't say anything.
As for the topic, I agree that views have been changing. A coworker of mine told my boyfriend I didn't need to lose weight when she found out I was watching what I'm eating. I was confused since I definitely have a belly to lose and consider myself fat. If I'm considered normal, something is wrong.
Also, I HATE vanity sizes! I hate never knowing what size to pick. I wish we would use inches like men's clothes!
I'm sorry my joke offended you so much and that you see it as par with dismissing the existence of trans-women.
Though, giving a second thought, responding to a comment that implies that a woman with something larger than a B cup can't be 'thin' by saying that a time when everyone was a B cup seems awful isn't offensive to women of a smaller bust size. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with a B cup, just that a time when EVERYONE (save those 3 poor fat girls) was a B cup seemed awful. I'm rather happy that there's a bit more diversity in bust size today.0 -
Marilyn Monroe would be a modern day size 6 (Not to mention she was 5'6). Reese Witherspoon is 5'1 and 95 pounds, according to the actress herself. I don't think anyone would call that the same size.
I will say Ava Gardner was a modern size 0, so I'm not sure where anyone gets the notion that she was anything but very small. Curvy and soft, yes, but very small.
Ahh fair enough. I wasn't taking height into account, since all I had were photos! I guess I said "size" when I should have said "proportions".0 -
When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.
If you're going to harp on people about not offending women, then maybe you shouldn't be just as offensive. There are still B cups in the world (such as myself), and you saying that sounds awful is offensive and rude. Practice what you preach or don't say anything.
As for the topic, I agree that views have been changing. A coworker of mine told my boyfriend I didn't need to lose weight when she found out I was watching what I'm eating. I was confused since I definitely have a belly to lose and consider myself fat. If I'm considered normal, something is wrong.
Also, I HATE vanity sizes! I hate never knowing what size to pick. I wish we would use inches like men's clothes!
I'm sorry my joke offended you so much and that you see it as par with dismissing the existance of trans-women.
You responded while I was responding, so I'm editing this to include that. Variety is great, I agree, but your post wasn't clear about that. It just came off as saying smaller cup sizes are bad. Not being able to hear tone makes it hard to know how things should be taken sometimes. Also, I'm not saying it's not important to include trans-people. Breaking gender roles is important.0 -
Marilyn Monroe would be a modern day size 6 (Not to mention she was 5'6). Reese Witherspoon is 5'1 and 95 pounds, according to the actress herself. I don't think anyone would call that the same size.
I will say Ava Gardner was a modern size 0, so I'm not sure where anyone gets the notion that she was anything but very small. Curvy and soft, yes, but very small.
Ahh fair enough. I wasn't taking height into account, since all I had were photos! I guess I said "size" when I should have said "proportions".
Height really changes quite a few things; but in terms of proportions they are very similiar I agree. It's funny how their shapes 'seem' so much different in spite of that, isn't it? Ava, for example, is very similar in size to Anne Hathaway but words like 'Bomshell' and 'Curvy' would never be used to describe Anne thought their measurements are only different by a few inches (2 in bust, 1 in hip, 3 in waist) I suspect it's because stars of our era have 'harder' bodies compared to the ones of past generations.When I was in high school (late 1980's) all the girls were thin - a B-cup at best
:noway: Well this sounds like an awful time.
If you're going to harp on people about not offending women, then maybe you shouldn't be just as offensive. There are still B cups in the world (such as myself), and you saying that sounds awful is offensive and rude. Practice what you preach or don't say anything.
As for the topic, I agree that views have been changing. A coworker of mine told my boyfriend I didn't need to lose weight when she found out I was watching what I'm eating. I was confused since I definitely have a belly to lose and consider myself fat. If I'm considered normal, something is wrong.
Also, I HATE vanity sizes! I hate never knowing what size to pick. I wish we would use inches like men's clothes!
I'm sorry my joke offended you so much and that you see it as par with dismissing the existance of trans-women.
You responded while I was responding, so I'm editing this to include that. Variety is great, I agree, but your post wasn't clear about that. It just came off as saying smaller cup sizes are bad. Not being able to hear tone makes it hard to know how things should be taken sometimes. Also, I'm not saying it's not important to include trans-people. Breaking gender roles is important.
Well it was certainly not my intent to offend or seem as if I feel smaller busts are less attractive, but I will agree that think a lack of 'tone' and perhaps me editing out the rest of the comment I was responding too (thus taking out the context of "save 3 fat girls") could make it seem like my comment was meant that way. I am willing to admit when my comments might come off as offensive and this is one of those times.
That said I come from a long line of small busted/large behind having women. Genetics got funny with me and gave me a flat butt and big boobs, so I spent a lot of my life feeling like I was odd/had an ugly shape and was often teased for having 'White Girl Booty'. (Nothing wrong with white girl booty, just not what i wanted in my teenage years, lol) and developing far ahead of my peers, so I take body acceptance very seriously and would never purposefully put other women down.0 -
Nothing wrong with A's, B's, C's, D's, ... whatever. In my day, we didn't have internet; so if you were lucky to see an actual pair of boobs in real life it was a magical experience !0
-
I think, not only are the new norms of being larger deemed ok, but they are embraced. So many ads pushing that it's ok.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions