Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, it would probably require that I go looking for it. But, I'm not interested.
You're not interested, but you still wanted to claim (a few pages back) that fatties aren't vilified. But because you don't care, aren't interested, and have never seen the evidence online, you really don't know, do you? It didn't stop you from claiming that such vilification doesn't exist.
Fat people are not destined to be considered the aesthetic mainstream. I was talking about in popular culture, magazines, art, TV, films. That's why there's this furor over ONE fat chick on the cover of a magazine. Because it's not "mainstream."
Quote:
Oh, but you are only talking about models. Which takes us back to my point that we should not be encouraging any normalisation of fat.
It's not going to happen, not in the way you think. We aren't going to have circus-lady women gracing the covers of fashion magazines.
Throughout history the culture does change, and sometimes bigger women are considered beautiful (see this link), but there's never been a point, at least not in recent recorded history, where the populace saw super huge as the ideal.
Quote:
Now you're just giving up and raising strawmen.
Eh, I'm just tired of trying to discuss something with someone who won't even do any research, because he's not interested . . .
Quote:
Yeah... right:
She doesn't look like that in the SI video, where she says she's a size 14. People's weight can fluctuate, and it doesn't take that long (especially when you're a bit bigger, which she is) to drop 5-10 pounds or more.
Look, I have already covered the weight/body measurements thing (where I gave BMI calculator links, etc) but you didn't even acknowledge them.
The charts are not foolproof, but often they seem to deem someone "obese" when they're not (because muscle weighs more than fat). That even these flawed BMI calculators are telling us that a 28-year old 5'9" woman at 201 pounds is overweight but not yet obese.
But I've already explained this, several times, you're just going to ignore it, because like with the vilification of fatties thing, you're not interested in actually having an honest discussion. Whatever, dude. Why I waste my time with someone who isn't even going to try, it fails me.
She wasn't mean or malicious about it at all. She said she thought it was unhealthy in the long run and that she thought it set a bad precedent. Then she went out of her way to say how pretty the model was.
I don't like people being mean or hurtful but I DO think we need less political correctness and more honesty these days..and thicker skin. I respect people when I see them exhibit it. It's refreshing that she did not give the politically correct, robotic, canned response that you'd expect to hear.
At the end of the day, I think she did absolutely nothing wrong and you think she did. We disagree so I'll leave it at that.
I don't think Cheryl Tiegs is the epitome of "healthy" standards though. Her teeth are terrible, which is sometimes a sign of bulimia and repeated vomiting. Also, the models waist is not over 35 inches. She's the same size as the average woman in the USA. She's not obese at all.
(We all know that Cheryl gave a backhanded compliment when she said the model has a gorgeous "face".
She's welcome to her opinion, but if she got backlash for it when she said it publicly. If she can't take it, then don't dish it out.
Last edited by Meyerland; 03-02-2016 at 07:24 AM..
She wasn't mean or malicious about it at all. She said she thought it was unhealthy in the long run and that she thought it set a bad precedent. Then she went out of her way to say how pretty the model was.
I didn't say she was mean. I said she brought up something critical with a model's name attached to it. She had a choice and she didn't HAVE to say that.
Quote:
I don't like people being mean or hurtful but I DO think we need less political correctness and more honesty these days..and thicker skin. I respect people when I see them exhibit it. It's refreshing that she did not give the politically correct, robotic, canned response that you'd expect to hear.
As I said before, if she was talking about "trends" and there was no one individual's name attached to her opinion, then it would have been different.
But it's not. Look at the title of this thread. Cheryl Tiegs criticizes SI for putting Ashley Graham on the cover. So it's Cheryl vs. Ashley.
You just don't do that, man. You don't. Not unless you want a lot of drama and hassle. Or attention. Well, Cheryl got her attention, didn't she?
Quote:
At the end of the day, I think she did absolutely nothing wrong and you think she did. We disagree so I'll leave it at that.
You try doing that to a peer or colleague, say that you think they suck (but you are just being honest! And you were ASKED! ) and see how well that goes over. I don't care how "nicely" you phrase it, it will be bad news for you. And this is not a new development that has occurred recently because everyone is too thin-skinned. Nobody really likes it when that's done and it's always looked bad.
I always laugh at the Marilyn Monroe thing. Surely you know that a size 12 in the 60's is a far cry from what a 12 is today. And even a few minutes of research is ample to completely disprove that silly myth of her size. She was, at the very most, an 8 in today's sizes. Have you ever seen any of her clothes
..in real life? I have. Believe me...she was no where near " fat"...quite the contrary in fact. Women love to spread this misinformation to justify their own largeness. It doesn't work.
Honestly, I don't care. The point I'm making is, Ashley Graham is not fat. She is 5'9", 170 pounds, large frame. She carries all of her weight in her thighs, butt, and breast. She's skinny everywhere else. Her stomach is flat. She might be 2-10 pounds over her ideal weight range , depending upon how much muscle she has. I would bet you a million dollars that many women in this country, who would not be considered fat, carry around 10 pounds more than their "healthy" range. 10 pounds over your ideal weight range is not considered fat. She is most certainly not obese. She doesn't need to gain anymore weight, and yes, she could stand to lose some weight. A lot of us can say such. But that does not mean she is fat. I would just about bet if she was not a famous model, and was standing in the same room as us, dressed normally, everybody would gush about how attractive and hot she is.
I read through a couple pages of this thread and most are vilifying Tiegs, which surprises me. Obesity is a major issue in the US, so much so that the first lady has made it a priority of hers to combat. Yet at the same time, we say that a size 14 woman is healthy?
Strange. Size 14 isn't a healthy weight. It takes a high body fat percentage to be a size 14, and that means that there is quite a bit of fat coating your internal organs, which promotes heart disease and other health issues. It is also usually indicative of an unhealthy diet because healthy food isn't really calorie-dense enough to be that big without eating enormous amounts of it.
Sure- being rail thin isn't healthy if you have to do unhealthy things to get to that size, but neither is the other extreme. The woman on the cover of SI was overweight. Period.
Women's clothing sizes have changed through the years and varies from maker to maker. Not a good way to base a person's overall health. BMI is another flawed method of judging a person's health. I served in the Navy and knew some Navy SEALS who, by BMI standards, were obese. These were men who jumped out of a boat several miles out at sea, swam to shore, ran on the sandy beach for several miles, and then began their workout. They had to have a photo taken of them in their shorts and submit the photo with the request for a waiver of the new Navy fitness standard which was based upon BMI. better method involves measuring height, weight, bone thickness, and caliper pinch test. More reliable is the immersion test. I'd much prefer women of this size and healthy than the anorexic runway models.
I don't think Cheryl Tiegs is the epitome of "healthy" standards though. Her teeth are terrible, which is sometimes a sign of bulimia and repeated vomiting. Also, the models waist is not over 35 inches. She's the same size as the average woman in the USA. She's not obese at all.
(We all know that Cheryl gave a backhanded compliment when she said the model has a gorgeous "face".
She's welcome to her opinion, but if she got backlash for it when she said it publicly. If she can't take it, then don't dish it out.
Yeah, all this complaining about "political correctness" is a two-way street.
I'm not a big fan of oversensitivity or political correctness myself. In fact I can be quite unpolitically correct at times. But even I can see that there are some things that are tacky, cruel, ungracious, badly timed, badly expressed, unkind, and if you say them anyway, you have to deal with the reaction.
Complaining about being criticized when you yourself started it by being critical, and often in a too-personal, intrusive, rude way (as is so often the case) is hilarious irony. It's like, "Oh, I was just being honest when I told you that you looked like a hideous hedgehog, but you can't get angry about that! You can't react back! You can't criticize me for saying it!" So basically, they want the right to dish it out, but they whine when they get it back. It doesn't work that way.
Whether or not she is good-looking is a subjective determination, and one I have no interest in debating.
However, that being overweight and or obese is unhealthy is an objective fact.
That girl, whether you find her good-looking or not, is at least overweight and more than likely obese. It is an unhealthy condition, no matter what spin some may wish to put on it.
Fair enough on her appearance. Regarding her height and weight I am guessing she's a lot more healthy than you're giving her credit for. I recognize weight reaches a point where it is unhealthy but what I soundly reject is the idea that this threshold has a "one size fits all" quality. Every person is a little different from the next. Two people of the exact same H/W may look entirely different and be on completely different levels of health and fitness. It's a lot more dynamic than simply looking at H/W.
I also don't buy into the "healthy at any weight" mentality. I just don't buy the notion that any person over a certain weight for a certain height is by definition unhealthy. That's pretty simplistic. That people have repeatedly tried to make this about health is laughable to me. Graham is probably one of the more healthy women in an industry littered with unhealthy examples. I remain fascinated by the attempts to make this about health when there is so much silence about the health of many other models. I guess being unhealthy south of the ideal weight threshold is okay.
Why are you telling us what Cheryl Tiegs is saying about the magazine and the picture? She has every right to state her opinion. Your thread sounds like gossip. If you have an opinion about the magazine and/or the picture; tell us what you think. Personally, I don't read the magazine so without this thread, I wouldn't even know about it and I care even less than that.
Regarding her height and weight I am guessing she's a lot more healthy than you're giving her credit for.
Perhaps she is currently healthy. But, that is not the point I have been trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
I recognize weight reaches a point where it is unhealthy but what I soundly reject is the idea that this threshold has a "one size fits all" quality. Every person is a little different from the next. Two people of the exact same H/W may look entirely different and be on completely different levels of health and fitness. It's a lot more dynamic than simply looking at H/W.
Yes, that's very likely true.
But, we're not really talking about the one fat model. At least I am not. I've made it clear that I am talking about the population and the effect of obesity and being overweight on most people.
Despite the odd exceptions to the statistical rule, most people will be healthier if they are fit rather than fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
Graham is probably one of the more healthy women in an industry littered with unhealthy examples. I remain fascinated by the attempts to make this about health when there is so much silence about the health of many other models. I guess being unhealthy south of the ideal weight threshold is okay.
I don't think we need to worry too much about people being underweight in the US.
Last edited by Salmonburgher; 03-02-2016 at 08:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which takes us back to my point that we should not be encouraging any normalisation of fat.
But even I can see that there are some things that are tacky, cruel, ungracious, badly timed, badly expressed, unkind, and if you say them anyway, you have to deal with the reaction. 
