What do you think the size of a healthy woman would be?
Replies
-
I think realistically 8 (12 Australian)-10 (14 Australian) would be more ideal size for average woman who has the same height of a model and the model in question is a size 10 and is being called a plus size hence why this topic began. I just wanted to know if other people saw it differently than me or not.Morgan5647 wrote: »
0 -
benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.0 -
How I felt posting in this thread
0 -
Body shaming goes both ways.benefiting wrote: »
I think realistically 8 (12 Australian)-10 (14 Australian) would be more ideal size for average woman who has the same height of a model and the model in question is a size 10 and is being called a plus size hence why this topic began. I just wanted to know if other people saw it differently than me or not.Morgan5647 wrote: »
Why this thread is still kicking surprises me, ideal is whatever works for said person.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »I just read an article about how a woman who is a size 14 (Australian) is classed as a plus size model. I would assume that healthy woman would infact be around size 12-14 (size 10-12 for US) and yet this woman is being called plus size?!
I know that you shouldn't go off dress size at the end of the day but I'm curious as the article was directed towards models rather than real life situtions where weight, height, BMI, etc would be more effective to answer what is healthy.
I would also judge BMI and current body fat %, like I am not fat (48 kilos, 161 sm) but my current body fat is 27 % so weight doesn't mean basically anything.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Who defines what THE ideal body size is? This is a completely different question from your OP about health, BTW.
But, to whoever makes the body size rules out there...
Nope. My orginal question was the first paragraph I wrote but I believe I wrote the second part so people are aware I know it isn't how you measure health. The orginal question was what size do you find healthy not what is it actually healthy which I later said was more towards what we precieve as a healthy size not what is a healthy size. I may of worded it wrong but I know what I mean and some have realised that too.
But then you ask if a model size 0 is ideal or if a plus size is ideal. Ideal by what standards?
This question has no answer. If it's health standards, it depends on a physical. We can't determine what is healthy or not by size, unless morbid obesity is apparent. How can one say that a 10 is less healthy than a 2 without knowing medical status. So, that doesn't work.
If it's a physical beauty ideal that you are getting at, it depends on personal preference. There is no one right way to be. Some people like very skinny women. Others like big women. No one is right or wrong.
Instead of trying to answer the impossible, it's better to just not care. Focus instead on being the best version of yourself you can be, regardless of what a made-up, airbrushed, professionally clothed model looks like on paper.
I said if you think 0 is ideal or if something closer to plus size is ideal I believe (and if I didn't I need to learn to prove read and such) and by ideal I mean ideal to you. That's why the question says: What do you think the size of a healthy woman would be because it's your opinion about the subject, not anyone elses. I am getting at physical apperence and not internal which I think I have stated before.
I don't tend to care about the modelling world as I know that it isn't realstic and such but just because we know better doesn't mean that there is people out there not being affected by the sitution. I think they should just call them models, not plus size and such. It's body shaming in a way.
And you aren't participating in that body shaming by asking people to share their "ideal" body size and making declarations about what YOU think is ideal?
How do you think someone reading this feels who is 5'10 and naturally a size 6 long? Or 5'10 and a size 18?
That's why this whole debate is stupid. Just do you and stop trying to put people in one box or another.0 -
Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.0 -
Steph38878 wrote: »I'm not sure about a specific size. My husband just says he prefers curves to a super thin woman.
I am sorry but we aren't discussing mens preference here, we are discussing HEALTH men can like you super,super skinny, they can like you curvy too but someones preference doesn't equal health.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Who defines what THE ideal body size is? This is a completely different question from your OP about health, BTW.
But, to whoever makes the body size rules out there...
Nope. My orginal question was the first paragraph I wrote but I believe I wrote the second part so people are aware I know it isn't how you measure health. The orginal question was what size do you find healthy not what is it actually healthy which I later said was more towards what we precieve as a healthy size not what is a healthy size. I may of worded it wrong but I know what I mean and some have realised that too.
But then you ask if a model size 0 is ideal or if a plus size is ideal. Ideal by what standards?
This question has no answer. If it's health standards, it depends on a physical. We can't determine what is healthy or not by size, unless morbid obesity is apparent. How can one say that a 10 is less healthy than a 2 without knowing medical status. So, that doesn't work.
If it's a physical beauty ideal that you are getting at, it depends on personal preference. There is no one right way to be. Some people like very skinny women. Others like big women. No one is right or wrong.
Instead of trying to answer the impossible, it's better to just not care. Focus instead on being the best version of yourself you can be, regardless of what a made-up, airbrushed, professionally clothed model looks like on paper.
I said if you think 0 is ideal or if something closer to plus size is ideal I believe (and if I didn't I need to learn to prove read and such) and by ideal I mean ideal to you. That's why the question says: What do you think the size of a healthy woman would be because it's your opinion about the subject, not anyone elses. I am getting at physical apperence and not internal which I think I have stated before.
I don't tend to care about the modelling world as I know that it isn't realstic and such but just because we know better doesn't mean that there is people out there not being affected by the sitution. I think they should just call them models, not plus size and such. It's body shaming in a way.
And you aren't participating in that body shaming by asking people to share their "ideal" body size and making declarations about what YOU think is ideal?
How do you think someone reading this feels who is 5'10 and naturally a size 6 long? Or 5'10 and a size 18?
That's why this whole debate is stupid. Just do you and stop trying to put people in one box or another.
I don't feel I am body shaming. I am asking for an opinion, it doesn't mean it is right or wrong. It's just an opinion as is my opinions. All the stuff about underweight is based on BMI, which is something I tend to lean on for a guide but at the end of the day it's how you feel inside and how you think of yourself on the outside that counts. I just feel like this woman should just be called a model, not a plus size model. That is all.0 -
benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »cincysweetheart wrote: »Size varies on so many things. So does weight. It's simply impossible to pick one size or one weight that equals healthy. You have asked an unanswerable question.
I refuse to think it's an unanwerable question because I didn't say whether it was health or not, due to it obviously not being an accurate way of measument but the veiw of the viewers and aspiring to be thin like the models themselves. Do people find the size 0 or so models to be the ideal or do they think someone who is closer to a plus size to be more ideal? That is what I'm getting at.
You do understand that "ideal" is going to be in the eye of the beholder right...and that everyone has different tastes?
Personally, I prefer a fuller, athletic look...example, Jennifer Parilla...this is very similar to my wife's body type save for Jennifer is a bit leaner here and has slightly larger thighs.
I personally am not attracted to the rail thin with no fat and no muscle...but my best friend is.
If you think there's a one size fits all, you are sorely mistaken.0 -
I think you can be a size 14 and be healthy and fit, I'm not going to say skinny, skinny is out, fit is in, and the way everyone should be. I also think you can be a size 6 and be unhealthy. As far as obese? That all depends on your BMI. If you look at the picture, all these ladies look healthy and are "plus" size. There's a few who aren't "plus" size, but you can see the comparison, none of them look fat. It's all in how you carry yourself, what you eat, and how much you exercise. You can also be "skinny fat". I'm not trying to get into my old size 5 jeans, I'm trying to be healthy and fit. If I stay at a 9 for the rest of my life, if I'm healthy and fit, I'll be happy with that.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »cincysweetheart wrote: »Size varies on so many things. So does weight. It's simply impossible to pick one size or one weight that equals healthy. You have asked an unanswerable question.
I refuse to think it's an unanwerable question because I didn't say whether it was health or not, due to it obviously not being an accurate way of measument but the veiw of the viewers and aspiring to be thin like the models themselves. Do people find the size 0 or so models to be the ideal or do they think someone who is closer to a plus size to be more ideal? That is what I'm getting at.
You do understand that "ideal" is going to be in the eye of the beholder right...and that everyone has different tastes?
Personally, I prefer a fuller, athletic look...example, Jennifer Parilla...this is very similar to my wife's body type save for Jennifer is a bit leaner here and has slightly larger thighs.
I personally am not attracted to the rail thin with no fat and no muscle...but my best friend is.
If you think there's a one size fits all, you are sorely mistaken.
Nope. I actually wanted to know what people's opinions were as their own. Not that one would fit all. I think that's what people assume I want but it isn't. I know it will differ depending on the person. 0 -
What?!?!?! That makes no sense. A size 8 is a size 8 whether the person wearing it is 4'8 or 6'2. Are you saying both women are the same amount of 'healthy'??benefiting wrote: »
I think realistically 8 (12 Australian)-10 (14 Australian) would be more ideal size for average woman who has the same height of a model and the model in question is a size 10 and is being called a plus size hence why this topic began. I just wanted to know if other people saw it differently than me or not.Morgan5647 wrote: »
0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I ended up trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. The rest was just asking for personal opinions of you guys. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!0 -
Also, from a guys perspective...we really don't have a clue what size you are...none of those numbers make any sense, and we don't know or care to know. If you say you're a size 8 or 12 or whatever, that is completely meaningless information for most guys...it just seems like yet another number for women to obsess about.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Also, from a guys perspective...we really don't have a clue what size you are...none of those numbers make any sense, and we don't know or care to know. If you say you're a size 8 or 12 or whatever, that is completely meaningless information for most guys...it just seems like yet another number for women to obsess about.
True. Apparently lots of people don't care about the size of clothes no more unless... it wasn't a major thing back in the day? This post has made me think at points though.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I was trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!
I'm not personally offended because I don't subscribe to random people who determine what is "normal."
I also don't look to airbrushed, designer clad and professionally made up women to be role models or to wave the banner for body image and health. Modeling is marketing. It's not real.
Saying one person's body is ideal, while person's body is not (especially without knowing the context of their personal story, medical history, lifestyle, etc.) is a completely biased judgement call. You are judging and you are, inherently, shaming those who do not fit into what YOU personally feel is ideal. Why shouldn't "normal" models be the face of a campaign? Because you said so? Because it doesn't fit into your paradigm of what a "normal" woman's body looks like?
But, most importantly, the point you are missing is that these conversation are counterproductive and meaningless without context. Comparing yourself to others and justifying your body shape (or hating your body shape) based on a biased view of what is "normal" is a complete waste of time and energy.0 -
benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »benefiting wrote: »Morgan5647 wrote: »benefiting wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »WishesOnTheStar wrote: »For me 40-55kg (88-120lb) is a perfect range for a girl < 5'9"
Healthy depends more upon body fat %, diet, and lifestyle than things like dress size. Hard to relate the two, but for sure a sedentary lifestyle with high sugar intake is going to lead to higher bf% and health problems.
Did you really just say it is ok for a grown woman to weigh 88lbs? A ten year old weighs that. Only if she is a dwarf would that be ok.
Word.
I think anything under 125 for anyone over 4 feet 8 is underweight and the fact is the taller you are the more weigh the more weight you should have on you and based on BMI alone someone who is 125LB at 5"10 is underweight. I know it call comes down to body type and such but that my rule of thumb.
I'm like 114lb and 5ft 4 and have a bmi of roughly 20-I'm not underweight and defo would not even consider myself skinny.
Sorry. Took the information completely wrong because comfirming. You are correct. You aren't underweight. It's the other way in fact anyone around 5.7" and over is underweight and anyone who is 4.8" is overweight but it still proves my point, these models who are under 125 are underweight, it may not be by much but they're. Though, this model is also just in the overweight caterogy but I still view her as a better figure for normal woman than these skinner models.
Um, yeah.
Yes, I have a right to have an opinion. I have a right to think that the "plus size model" is a better figure for woman to look up to and they're skinner, hence the term skinner models. It isn't body shaming, they're skinner than her.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
Don't think for a second though that posting comments like this isn't body shaming. I mean, you can think that way but you would be kidding yourself.
The only point I was trying to get across is that normal models shouldn't be the face of what is ideal because to some people it is and that a bigger woman or even somewhere inbetween would be more realstic and ideal in my opinion. If you're skinner and feel happy and healthy good for you, my intentions weren't to offend you through what I've said. I honestly thought it was a harmless question but apparently not. Lesson learnt!
I'm not personally offended because I don't subscribe to random people who determine what is "normal."
I also don't look to airbrushed, designer clad and professionally made up women to be role models or to wave the banner for body image and health. Modeling is marketing. It's not real.
Saying one person's body is ideal, while person's body is not (especially without knowing the context of their personal story, medical history, lifestyle, etc.) is a completely biased judgement call. You are judging and you are, inherently, shaming those who do not fit into what YOU personally feel is ideal. Why shouldn't "normal" models be the face of a campaign? Because you said so? Because it doesn't fit into your paradigm of what a "normal" woman's body looks like?
But, most importantly, the point you are missing is that these conversation are counterproductive and meaningless without context. Comparing yourself to others and justifying your body shape (or hating your body shape) based on a biased view of what is "normal" is a complete waste of time and energy.
You do realise that we are in a world full of judgement, right? Not everyone is in world acceptance. Maybe I shouldn't of used the word ideal because people have tended to take that offensively but some people could have an ideal dress size or one they're achieving for or have felt like they're worth less or more because of their dress size. I know that there is all differently types of things that determines ones health too. You don't need to make me aware of this but this topic was orginally purely on dress size.
I feel I have not once brought up my own body into this discussion that I recall nor have I compared it to anyone else. I wasn't trying to justify my own body or such since this topic came up after I saw an article about the model. I may be a little bias because they're instead my own views and such but the most importantly, if you feel this is a waste of enegry, why are you wasting it on trying to point out my wrongs? I am not directly trying to shame anyone here. I even admited I was wrong when someone pointed it out and aplogised and corrected myself. You don't need to continue to prove me wrong anymore. I get why you think I have body shamed but I also think you could be reading into it too much or I have thought about my replies too little, either way - I'm aware now, okay?0 -
I think you problem here OP is insisting on dress size--it really means nothing. You, yourself, were asking about the "health" thing in your post. I can put a size 12 on a tall thin woman or a middle size one, or a chunky short one. Which one do I like better? What a question! This makes no sense.
0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I think you problem here OP is insisting on dress size--it really means nothing. You, yourself, were asking about the "health" thing in your post. I can put a size 12 on a tall thin woman or a middle size one, or a chunky short one. Which one do I like better? What a question! This makes no sense.
It was more of a question about perception of a healthy woman rather than actual health of a woman since the article was going on about how this woman is size 14 (10 US) and is plus sized but it became this along the way of me trying to explain my question and sharing my opinions. I could of worded everything wrong. It made sense to me at the time. I should of just said nothing and saved all the drama. I wasn't here to insult anyone, it was purely innocent and my opinions. I guess people do get touchy over the forums though but I guess you learn from everything in life, right?0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Years ago a tailor friend confirmed what I had discerned from observation: a size 8 in an expensive dress is roughly equivalent to a size 10 in a moderately priced dress. I suppose this is to make you feel better about spending too much for that little black dress you just bought. I agree with the others - the size on the tag is irrelevant.0
-
My size is perfect for me.
0 -
benefiting wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »When you're talking models and what is normal, healthy etc., this does not apply to the general population. Model's must have a certain bone structure and height. An average woman knows when she's healthy---someone with an ED does not. I, for one, do not like models used as examples. The beauty of us girls is our diversity.
I should of use this to try and get one of my points across but I agree. Models tend to be different from the general population but why? Why aren't there more women who can be more like us non-model women or something to repersent someone more like us without being called plus size or any other labels, you know? This may not be the orginal question but through everything I've said, that's what it comes down to.
Because models just aren't intended to be an accurate example of the population. Designers like skinny women to show off their clothes, and skinny photoshopped models sell more units than people of a more average size and that's literally all that marketing cares about. While I'd personally love to see a larger range of models that just isn't the current situation. The fashion industry owes us nothing in terms of representation, and asking why normal/heavier sized people can't be the average fashion model is like complaining that the lack of skinny-fat girls in fitness magazines is disproportionate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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