Yep…a real porker.
Dr. Melissa links to a UK article about a Miss England contestant who some people say is too big. I took the pic of Marilyn Monroe from Dr. Melissa and stuck it next to the one of this “fat” girl, who is 5′10″.
She’s gross, right? And by “gross”, I mean extremely attractive.
They say she’s a size 16 (UK), which is about 14 (US), which they say is plus-sized. Bullcorn. That’s perfectly average.
This is something I think more women should talk about: there is so much dishonesty and inconsistency revolving around the issue of womens’ clothing sizes that it’s not even funny anymore.
Sizes have been drastically re-calibrated in the last 10-15 years, they vary widely depending on who designed them and even sometimes within the same brand. I have three pairs of Gap jeans that all fit me exactly the same but one is a 4, one is a 6, and one is an 8. I have Old Navy jeans in size 4 and size 9. I have jeans from high school that are size 2, and they fit the same as some of my current size 6 and 8’s.
The point is, any woman who claims to be one certain “size” is lying unless she’s had only one pair of pants for the last 20 years. Why women choose to be dishonest about this is beyond me, BUT IT’S NOT HELPING.
Young girls end up with body-image issues because they are being lied to. They see Paris Hilton on TV talking about being a size 0 and they believe that. Knowing that they themselves are wearing size 8 pants right now, they conclude that they’re fat.
But Paris Hilton is not a size 0.
Girls see sites like this one, which claims that Paris is 5′8″ and 105 pounds. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I know what 105 pounds looks like, and it ain’t Paris Hilton.
Most people’s idea of what a certain weight looks like is completely screwed up, and they think that others weigh a lot less than they really do. I first learned this when I worked at the OB/GYN and cancer clinics and it was my job to weigh every patient. Two things happened a lot: one was that if a woman saw a “smaller” woman on the scale before her, she’d often say something while approaching the scale along the lines of “you’re gonna have to bump it up for me”. I hardly ever did have to; the first one always weighed much more than the second one suspected.
The other thing was that a lot of women, while being weighed, would be very embarrassed and nervous, and would make self-deprecating jokes about themselves as compared to me. “I bet you don’t get nervous about weighing in at the doctor, do you? Tiny little thing, what do you weigh, 90 pounds?”
Yes, I weigh that much, plus another 25.
The thing I learned is that most women have a seriously distorted idea of what 90 or 100 pounds looks like. They think someone who weighs that little would look like me, your average short, skinny woman. WRONG. 90 or 100 pounds is tiny. We’re talking anorexic tiny, little old lady tiny, 16-year-old short-girl-with-no-boobs tiny. Not me and certainly not Paris Hilton with her size-11 feet.
Lying starlets are the root of many evils, and this is the worst of those evils. They’ve got perfectly healthy young women who might weigh about 125 pounds convinced that in order to look like Paris Hilton, they’re gonna have to lose 20 or 30. No, you don’t. They think that a woman who is 5′8″ could wear a size 0 or 2 (averaging out the sizes of all her clothes which is the only honest way to do it) and look anything other than skeletal. No, she can’t.
I’m so glad I don’t have daughters to whom I would have to explain all of this. I imagine it would take hours each day to counteract the lying garbage she read in magazines or saw on TV about all these “size 2″ actresses weighing “100″ pounds.
Anyway, so the British “plus-sized” girl above: same figure as Marilyn freakin’ Monroe and yet she’s being interviewed for articles about how big she is. She says she’s doing it to help other young girls, and good for her. I hope it does help. But somehow I get the feeling the girls her message is aimed at are gonna be too busy to pay attention. It takes a lot of their time, starving themselves and making themselves puke in order to weigh what they think morons like Paris Hilton weigh. (Which…she doesn’t.)
Come on now, I think she is counting her actual weight minus the implants, botox, nail polish and make-up. Even so it is clearly as honest a statement as anything Hillary has said this week/month/year/decade/lifetime….
March 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pmI think you’ve been hoodwinked by the Kennedy political machine and its fawning and worshipping admirers. They made her into an icon because she slept with JFK, not because she had either talent or beauty.
Marilyn Monroe was not very attractive. In fact, she was chubby, and ugly. I wouldn’t have asked her out even by non movie star standards. And this woman is quite a bit heftier than Monroe was.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pmOh shut it. She’s hot. They both are.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pmi have an inferiority complex honed by many years of watching very skinny 5′11″ models saunter down runways on tv. i’ve done those things you talked about. i’m a little better, but it’s hard sometimes. i’m glad that girl is going ahead with this, she is quite pretty. a heckuva lot prettier than some of the crack ho meth heads out there.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pmI’m 5′6″. At 23 I fell in love and nearly stopped eating. Ran on nervous energy. Weighed 118 when I got married - it was too thin! Nice, but not sustainable and only happened because for a little while (6 weeks, maybe) my brain was literally living on love. I can’t imagine living on air on purpose just to be thin. I’ve settled in at 145, when I eat right and exercise, and it feels and looks fine. Hubby of 25 years is happy, I’m happy. I have a sister who never stops dieting (at least in her mind she is dieting - it’s more a cycle of under indulgence followed by over indulgence) and she is never happy and always heavy. And what big score card in the sky is this all being kept track of on, anyway - all this comparing and obsessing - when do you finally ‘win’? It’s absurd. Go eat a burger - and enjoy it.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pmAt 14, I was anorectic and bulimic because I thought I was enormous at 116 lbs. How effing crazy is that? When I was being treated for my disease, I knew a 5′10″ young woman who was forcefully tube fed once she hit 110 lbs. They did that because, at that weight, she was close to death. And this was an athletic figure skater! I agree, Rachel: there’s just no way Paris Hilton is 105.
If this young woman (”Miss Surrey”, as in one of the lovely Home Counties of greater London) does anything to help girls love themselves for who they are and what they look like, she’s doing a wonderful, wonderful thing! She’s amazing.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pmActually, Skyler, the main difference I see is that Marilyn Monroe was significantly more fit than the Miss England contestant. I don’t think she’s “fat”, but she looks, “sloppy”, a term I use for people who appear to be heavier because they get no exercise, and therefore have no “tightness” to their figure.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pmAt what point did fashion designers and women’s mags assume that small and anorexic was hot? Paris is too damn skinny and not hot. I had a girlfriend at one time that was 5′4″ and 145 lbs. Yet she had a flat stomach, C-D cup size and wasn’t muscular or anything like that. That was normal. Most guys I know don’t like super skinny minies. I have one friend who’s wife is skinny yet she insists that she needs to lose weight. She could put on 25 lbs and no one would notice and everybody would think she’s still hot.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pmWayne B:
Gee, thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:30 pm105? Puh-leeze. Only if the air in her head is helium. She’s got a solid 4 inches on me and I outweigh her by 20 pounds if that’s anything close to true. And I’m a long way from big. I’m calling BS
Miss Surrey is beautiful and I wish her luck.
jjs-you are very cute and have nothing to worry about. I’m sorry anyone has ever made you feel otherwise. (I’m sure I completely embarrassed you there.)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pmWayne, you have defined fat. Not having a “tight” figure, that is having lard that is not directly embedded in muscle is what being fat is. Anorexic is the opposite extreme. Neither is attractive.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pmIt’s not just this country. I once worked with a cute, young, tiny Chinese immigrant woman from Hong Kong. She was about 5′ and change and had trouble finding clothes that fit her at size zero, often having to go shop in the Junior’s section.
She was so tiny, that she told me she found the seats on airplanes roomy. Tiny, I tell you.
So, she goes on a one month trip back to Hong Kong to visit family. When she came back, she had lost weight! She explained that it was become of family comments that she was turning too fat!
So, it’s not just Western culture.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pmMy preference is toward women that have natural OR fit physiques. I don’t go for the types that clearly don’t take care of themselves, whether it be overeating or starving. The woman on the left is borderline, but I wouldn’t call her fat. If I were 6′5″ 285, she’d be my dream girl. It’s all relative I guess.
And regarding pants/dress sizes for women- one number is not enough. Men’s pants have two numbers- waist size and length. For suits, we have a couple more. I guess too many numbers can be confusing, but maybe some brilliant mathematicians can come up with some sort of equation to figure out the perfect way to designate women’s clothing sizes. And that way, nerds can be sexy. Everyone wins!
March 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pmHonestly, women should just have their clothes sized up like men…with inches and real linear measurements. If I go into a store and tell the clerk I wear a 46 Regular suit, have a 17.5 inch neck, a 34 sleeve and a 38 inch waist with a 30 inch inseam…my clothes fit!
Body image is important, and as the father of a little girl and a man whose dated women with eating disorders (not intentionally), I have a ton of sympathy for what women put themselves through for what you think we like.
Take Miss England into a bar, and take a stick figure, and see who winds up with more guys hitting on them. Comparisons on the Net and though pictures don’t count, it’s when you’ve got to man up and ask her that counts.
My modest proposal is this:
If the clothes size thing is really troubling women so much, I double-dog dare (Rachl, can you post an appropriate picture of what a true double dog dare should look like?) a ladies clothing manufacturer to use the “guy” system. If that kind of measurement method doesn’t sell with women, then you ladies have only yourselves to blame.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pmUmm, well okay I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think MM was one of the most beautiful women ever. Granted she looked pretty plain without make-up (most women do, lol) but damn, she was one fine looking woman.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pmI also agree Rachel about these idiots stars. I look at them and then when I read they are a size zero or two, I’m like, ok, yeah, sure.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pmAttractiveness is like pornography, I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. I’ve never understood the idea of a “type.” I would agree that extremes in either direction are not attractive, but the middle ground on this issue is pretty damn wide as far as I’m concerned.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pmlangtry - I didn’t say I had a big problem with her. I’m currently much further down that road than she is. I was just saying that a person who gets exercise can look better at a given weight than one who doesn’t. However, looking again, it could be that her posture in that pose is doing part of it. There seems to be a trend in the past several years of women posing in a slouch. I don’t know if that is supposed to enhance something that I’m not getting, but it usually makes me vaguely uneasy.
Skyler - we definitely have different definitions of the word, “fat”. I definitely don’t think she’s overweight enough to be considered fat.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pmCheck this out…
The Photographic Height/Weight Chart:
http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/heightweight.shtml
March 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pmIconoclast - that’s a great site! Thanks for that.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pmThat British girl is yummy.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pmAmen, sister. I hate that I feel so self-conscious about my body and it is perfectly average. I tend to miss out on a lot because I have such a negative image about it. We bought a boat last summer and if friends were going out with us, I always found a reason to keep covered up instead of wearing my swimsuit and actually swimming and tubing and skiing. Frustrating. Great post.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pmMiss England had a fat face (like Monica Lewisky) - the fat face makes you think that she is fatter than she actually is. I also agree with the comment that Miss E looks like she does not exercise at all, which is more unattractive than the actual poundage, which is really not huge. Marylin Monroe did not have a fat face like Miss E - and this is probably one of the most unflattering shots of her. Of course, Marylin certainly had some meat on her bones but it was generally in the right places and did not detract from the overall aura of sexiness. She was by no means the most physically perfect celeb of her era, but she just seemed to exhale sexiness nonetheless.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pmGross?
Far from it!
That woman is smokin’ hot sexy!
Because she’s obviously comfortable in her own skin.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pmYes, but some people should feel a bit more discomfort. The woman should be on a diet and it’s pathetic that she could win a beauty contest.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pmSkyler said:
We’re all entitled to our opinions of course. But it’s comments like Skyler’s that make girls turn to bulimia or anorexia. Monroe is an icon for her glamor and curves. Every time someone says a woman who looks like Monroe is chubby or fat - another young girls sticks her finger down her throat.
I was anorexic in high school - I stopped eating for most of my senior year. By the time prom came around, I was 5′7″ tall and weighed 120 pounds. And I have a large skeletal frame - I’ve looked at pictures of myself from that time and I look - horrible. Unhealthy. Unhappy.
I’m still 5′7″ and I weigh alot more than 120 these days. I also eat healthy - have lost 37 pounds recently only because I had hit an unhealthy weight for my age and health history - and I get enough exercise to feel satisfied with myself. My hubby adores me and men take long appreciative looks at me. My curves are in the right places - and I’m no stick figure by any means.
Girls like Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and others like them do such a grave disservice to girls who want to be them. Yeah, Nicole Richie doesn’t have an eating disorder…yeah, Paris Hilton eat burgers for dinner. Mmm Hmm.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pmThe only thing about Paris Hilton that is a “O” is her I.Q.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm36-22-36 is pure perfection. But in today’s world, it’s “fat”.
Are there any other pics of Miss Surrey to be had? Because I think that gawdawful tracksuit (official uniform of 21st Century Britain) is adding pounds and “sloppy” where there may not be any.
RG
March 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pmSkyler, by whose standards should the beauty contestant, or others like her, feel “more discomfort”? She looks beautiful, happy and healthy. Just because you don’t like how she looks doesn’t mean she has to feel bad about herself.
And what is a diet exactly? The word diet should not be a verb.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pmNothing too wrong with Marilyn Monroe physically, but the airhead thing is definitely NOT sexy. Give me Rita Hayworth, Katherine Hepburn, or even Elizabeth Taylor. More recently, how about Sigourney Weaver and Kathleen Turner? These days, it’s Jennifer Connelly. The whole point of actors, models and beauty queens is that they’re idealized versions of the rest of us. In real life, the perfect size for a woman is: small enough that I can carry her (for the sake of my ego) but big enough that I won’t crush or smother her (I’m 6′2″/210 lbs.).
March 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pmYeah, blame people who know what fat is on sicko chicks who haven’t been raised with enough gumption to exercise instead of vomit.
I was 5′7″ and 115 pounds when I went through Marine OCS. There wasn’t a shred of fat on my body, I was muscle and bone only and I was near the top of my class for physical fitness. Kris, you are a bit older now so that’s a harder goal to achieve, but you really should remember that a 120 pound woman at 5′7″ is not necessarily too thin. It could be, depending on how healthy you are, but if you are eating and exercising normally, it’s a good thing. You would do well to attempt to get closer to that ideal.
Beauty is a reflection of health. Health is a reflection, partly, of character. It takes character to exercise and stay in shape. People who think that they can lose weight by vomiting or not eating are correct, they will lose weight. Concentration camp victims lose weight too. Starvation works well to make you lose weight. But starvation doesn’t make you beautiful.
It’s popular now to try to discourage women from puking to lose weight, or starving themselves to lose weight by telling them that being fat is better. But fat is not better. Exercise and staying in shape is better. Being thin is not the goal, being beautiful is. And there’s no way anyone can claim that the two fatties in the pictures at the top of this post, with those tremendous flabby thighs are beautiful. Yuck.
Here’s an analogy: Being smart is important. Getting good grades is a sign of being smart. Telling women that it’s okay to be chubby is like telling kids that cheating on tests to get good grades will mean that you’re smart.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pmI love love love that site, Earnest Iconoclast. Thank you!
March 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pmOnly if the air in her head is helium.
That would actually increase her weight, as it’s currently vacuum.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pmMan, who pissed in your corn flakes?
March 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pmNot everybody is going to be the same and not everybody aspires to be a supermodel. Genetics has a role to play–whether you are tall, short, thin, stocky–whatever. If a person eats reasonably healthy, exercises regularly, then they should remain healthy–for them. To try and fit into somebody’s mold usually leads to frustration, or worse.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pmYup. Muscle’s a lot denser than fat, which means it weighs more but protrudes less. A little muscle tone can also make a world of difference between the appearance of “sedentary” and “at least plays softball once a week”. (There is no such thing as “toning” exercise. Any exercise that remotely challenges the muscles will “tone” because that muscle is now being USED.)
As for the slouch, I don’t think it’s a trend so much as it is a habit many big girls- even if they are just tall- develop in a mostly-unconscious effort to look smaller. It can suck socially for a girl to be tall among other girls, but it can really kick a dent in her self-worth as a teenager if she’s also taller than many of the guys.
ETA: Wow. Since when is not being in Spartan shape a moral deficiency? I’m not one of the Fat Acceptance types that claim that dieting never works and fat is more a state of being than a state of poor diet and exercise, but why should someone else’s less-than-perfect shape make us actively uncomfortable? Smoking isn’t healthy either, and it used to be- still is for some- sexy.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pmA feature of beauty (from the 40’s-60’s) that has largely disappeared from the so-called exemplars of today, is class.
Marilyn may have weighed 20 pounds more for her height than current “beauties,” but she held herself in ways that said “You want me. But I have all the cards. And when I move, I am grace itself.”
Kim DuToit has been showing this for years.
http://www.sophialoren.com/about/photos/color/index.htm
http://www.batnet.com/~mfwright/gina_lollobrigida.html
http://members.aol.com/HarlowGold/kimnovak.html
Today’s “beauties” have nothing to offer re character, class, dignity, grace, intelligence, responsibility, or humility.
They are merely meat–which gets rotten with age.
Anita Ekberg!
Oh, Lord, just one more time, Lord!
http://www.icelebz.com/celebs/anita_ekberg/
Scuse me for a few minutes…..
March 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pmWhoa. When was he president again?
As for your post, Rachel…yep. Girls convince themselves that thinness is the primary attribute of an attractive girl. Guys could mostly care less, but hey, who’s to argue with a girl if she wants to starve herself to look hotter?
At some point, the pathology has descended to the point where it’s not even about guys. I’ve had girls blow up in my face for talking about the issue in terms of what impresses guys. To rational people, this is insane, but what are you gonna do?
Of course, inevitably, the frustrated women blame the system of expectations on the White Male Patriarchy. Who, again, could care less.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pmA 22 inch waist? Are you kidding me? A 36-22-36 is impossible. It’s measurements like that - that makes women go anorexic.
No way you can be 36-22-36 unless you’re ultra skinny with huge silicon boobs. Show me a woman who claims to be that, I’ll show you a liar.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pmNo it isn’t. Health is a reflection of health. “Beauty” is an artificial construct. Every nation, race, and culture has their own standard of beauty. By your logic, a woman whose face was horribly scarred in a car accident but is otherwise at the peak of physical fitness is “unhealthy” because she does not possess your artificial standard of “beauty”.
And there are plenty of people out there that you would describe as “chubby” but are significantly more healthy than their skinnier counterparts. They have more energy, more endurance, and overall greater physical strength. They are perfectly healthy, but according to you they are not “beautiful” because they don’t meet your subjective standard of physical attractiveness.
Okay, who is saying that?
Oh for…
Were you teased about your weight as a child? Is that it? Because it sounds like you’re just displacing some sort of childhood abuse onto this woman.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pmShe is gorgeous! And this comes from a guy happily married 15 years (today!) to a 5′2″ size 6 120 pound gorgeous woman. I am sick to death of stick figures being thrust on us as the epitome of “beauty.” Beauty comes from being real, being happy, and being good to others.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pmMS, Not only would you let old ladies get stabbed to death in front of you without lifting a finger to help them, but you also do not understand beauty.
A scar does not make a woman ugly. Fat does.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pmNo one’s asking the question,’Yes, but Skyler, would Marilyn want to go out with you?’(sorry if someone brought that up and I missed it.) Not that you would care, since you find her so repulsive, it’s just too bad she can’t let us know, after seeing a picture of you. I’ve no idea if you are an attrative person or not, I’m just thinking the odds of her saying yes are pretty slim, after JFK. Who, by the way, I always thought was one homely lookin’ dude. Never saw the attraction, apart from the ‘leader of the free world’ thing, if that sort of thing does it for you. I think all the Kennedys are kinda funny looking. I know - handsome is in the eye of the beholder.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pmMy sister and mom are tall, and they are big girls at circa 160-180lb and they are *slim* to average builds. (high 5’s low 6′)
I’m an _average_ build 255 lb man at 6′7″. A women my size would weigh that too if she had any body fat/muscles.
I’m appalled when I see models that are my sister’s size, 5′11″, who weigh under 140 lbs, that’s just *sickly* thin.
Good Post!
March 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pmSorry, just gotta weigh in– literally–on this one.
A few years ago, I worked in an office with a woman who looked nothing like me. Her: black, slender, exotic features, took a size 6. Me: white, early 30’s, average build with curves, took a size 12. We were both participating in our company’s fitness initiative at the time, so sharing our stats with relative honesty was not a problem. And as it happened, we were within 2 lbs of each other’s weight, and within 1 inch of each other’s height. (Which was 5′4″ and about 145 lbs in my case, for those who like hard numbers.) Yet anyone who saw the two of us together would think that she was taller and weighed less.
You can see the same thing if you frequent any fitness-support sites or watch Discovery Health. There are some very athletic looking women who outweigh me by 20 lbs, and some very chubby ones who underweigh me by 10. Sometimes it’s all in the distribution.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pmSkyler:
Skyler, I’ll show you pictures of me at 5′7″ and 120 pounds - I looked like a lollipop. I have a large skeletal frame and that was horribly skinny. I was a size 5 at the time. For my frame, that was anorexic. Don’t presume to tell others what weight they should be at…I feel healthier today at the weight I am at than I did at 120 pounds. I’m 45 years old - I’d look positively ridiculous at that weight at my age. In fact, I am healthier than I was back then.
It certainly does sound like you agree that a slight case of anorexia would do a girl good. I’d like to see specific references to medical professional advocating fat over anorexia.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pmns - Monroe was. She was actually 35-22-35 according to her dressmaker.
RG
March 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pmDo you really want to revive that debate? Because I will school you again if I have to.
You do realize you just proved my point, don’t you?
I happen to think that a massive scar on her face does make a woman ugly. I also happen to think that “fat” does not, necessarily, make a woman ugly.
Why? Because “beauty” is entirely subjective. Your standard of beauty is different from mine, and vice versa. Therefore, the fact that this woman from England does not conform to YOUR standard of beauty is irrelevant. I think she looks great, and so does Rachel, and so, I would wager, do many of the other people commenting on this blog.
Are we all wrong? Are you really so arrogant as to believe that you are the only one with the right answer and everyone else is a deluded moron?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pmThe two photos are not even remotely alike.
People in America and Britain are much fatter than they used to be. There is no denying it, there is an obesity epidemic. And declaring the Surrey woman the winner of the beauty contest is not helping, when it’s obvious that she’s overweight, and there is no question that she is out of shape. That does not mean that she is not pretty, but she is definitely overweight. The pic of Marilyn Monroe shows clearly that Marilyn was not overweight.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pmKris said,
I was very clear that anorexia is wrong. It the method, not the result that matters. If one is healthy and thin, that’s great. If one is puking or starving and thin, that shows a lack of character.
Sam, I didn’t call anyone a deluded moron. I called you a coward.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pmRG - then the dressmaker’s measurements is not the measurement in the picture above.
No way in that picture of monroe was she a 35 in the hips. No way those thighs (in that picture) are supporting a 35 inch hips! One model at an agency I worked with was 21 yrs old, 5′4″ at 104 pounds, and was 34-23-34. And she was WAY too skinny! If you have a 22 inch waist, a 36 inch bust is REALLY outrageous. Not impossible, but definitely not a Monroe.
When you look at a number, it’s hard to visualize. To really make it real, find a woman you think looks like Monroe’s proportions, measure her… it’s not 36-22-36.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pmOh, I don’t know…I spent the years between ages 16 and 30, at 5′7″, size 9 feet and 115lbs. (excepting 9mos+2weeks for each pregnancy) and I couldn’t have gained a pound to save my life, no matter what I ate. But I was perfectly healthy.
I am currently at 136lbs (all my pants are size 10) but I’d hate to get much bigger. Size 14 is getting on the heavy side and I agree that Miss England looks a little sloppy — it’s the top of her arms that really shows it. She is pretty, but I think telling girls that this is a healthy body image is almost as bad as telling them that Paris Hilton’s is. Surely, there is something to be found, somewhere in the middle?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pmI am so not getting involved in this one.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pmSkyler, you don’t know jack about weight or health.
Healthy women require more fat than men. We need fat for our estrogen levels to sustain normal periods. The six-pack abs and muscular women that our culture presents as an ideal (not to mention skeletal fashion models) are not healthy.
Every healthy and beautiful woman has a layer of subcutanous fat which makes us delightfully smooth and touchable. We’re also more emotionally happy, as long as we aren’t listening to people like Skyler who want us to be muscular freaks.
I am beautiful. I am woman. I love six pack abs … on my husband.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pmYa wanna see a lie? Look at what passes for women’s shoes! Guys would either break an ankle walking in them, or get a nose bleed from the height! Then, really check out the lie. Look at the price! No WONDER women are always looking for sales!
Sports Authority and Payless Shoes. The boys’ places.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pmFor the record, Paris Hilton was never hot. She’s a disgusting little skank and seeing her naked makes me want to vomit, much like when we saw Lindsay Lohan naked.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pmIn the picture in this post, I think Miss Surrey looks great. However, I did check out the original article which has other pictures, and the girl is definitely not of a healthy weight. I think she still looks pretty, but she needs to lose weight for her HEALTH. That being said, it’s the same thing as models who are too thin and should gain some fat and muscle not for their looks, but for their HEALTH.
I’m fairly large for a woman. I’m 5′9″ with 39-28-39 measurements. This makes me (usually) a size 10-12. I exercise quite a bit and am strong- for example I use 20lb. weights for bicep curls and do cardio so that my heart rate is about 172 beats per minute for (at least) 30 minutes. I usually weigh between 155-160lbs. Anyway, I used to have a boyfriend who was my height but I outweighed him by almost THIRTY pounds. Guess which one of us could barely make it up the side of a mountain…. (Him.) Guess which one of us could eat anything and not gain an ounce… (Yes, him again.)
I guess it’s a good thing he’s my ex, because I like bigger guys, anyway.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pmI seem to remember that a woman’s waist-to-hip ratio of about 0.7 is subconsciously considered by most men to be “ideal”. Further, this “ideal ratio” holds regardless of what the absolute measurements are. It’s the ratio that matters.
So, 36″ hips should go with a 25″ waist — a 22″ waist would be out of proportion.
There is actually a waist-hip ratio article at Wikipedia, but it contains Not Safe For Work pics, so I’m not actually going to read it right now to determine whether I’m right or full of it.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pmI’ll point out that I’m 6′2″, 215 pounds, and most of that is out of shape fat, so it’s not like I’m going to be choosy here. That said…
1. Marilyn Monroe is not attractive to me. I mean, I get why she would be, but I can’t get past the fact that she’s a solid 11 years older than my grandma. I’m sorry. It kills it for me. I don’t have any real problem with her physique, mind you - it’s not bad.
2. Sorry, Rachel, but I have to disagree with Miss Surrey being attractive. I understand why some people would find her attractive, but, from a Miss Insert-Country-Name-Here contestant, I expect a little better. Keep in mind, though, that this is a very different playing field than a normal woman. Think of it like singing - there’s “I can sing in a karaoke bar without embarrassing myself” good and there’s “I can kick anyone’s butt at American Idol” good. Only one of those wouldn’t get laughed out of an AI audition. It’s not that the karaoke singer is a bad singer, mind you - he or she might be a better singer than most people, actually. However, there’s good, and then there’s good, if that makes sense.
3. The Paris Hiltons and Nicole Richies of the world are cancers upon American civilization. There. I said it. They’re popular strictly because they have money and they’re sluts (whores charge for their services). Past that, they have absolutely no redeeming features, physically or otherwise.
To be honest, I suspect Miss Surrey falls under the category of a lot of popular “attractive” women, such as Sarah Jessica Parker and Debra Messing. They’re women that other women find “hot” so they can feel better about themselves. It’s not that they’re unattractive, mind you. In fact, in any normal setting, they’d probably be more physically compelling than 2/3 of any group of women surrounding them. However, when you put them up against other Hollywood types, it’s clear that they’re in the “nice karaoke singer” territory and not in the “kicking ass at American Idol” territory that you need to be to be legitimately TV hot. This, of course, is why women love them - a lot of women can easily doll themselves up enough to match, if not exceed, the physical beauty exhibited by the people I just mentioned, and those that can’t can come a heck of a lot closer than they can to matching, say, Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman-with-hair (I can’t believe I have to qualify that…).
Again, it’s one thing if you met Miss Surrey, Debra Messing, or Sarah Jessica Parker in a bar or a mixer - odds are, most guys would happily talk to them and buy them a drink without feeling even remotely ashamed about it, just as you’d have no problems listening to the nice karaoke singer if they were singing at the same bar or mixer. However, if you’re a guy and you see either of them on television, you’re changing the channel, just as you would if you heard the karaoke singer on television.
Different venues means different standards. Makes sense, no?
March 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pmThat I agree with. She’s pretty hot, but I’ve definitely seen hotter. Properly speaking, beauty pageant contestants should be absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. Not “relatively attractive”.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pmI may be sick as a dog* and puffing my albuterol inhaler like it’s a cigarette, but in my opinion, that is one hot piece of woman right there.
The skinny chicks who look like they’re held up with wire do nothing for me. This woman, on the other hand, is gorgeous.
The Doctor Who fanboys in England had the same problem with Billie Piper (who played Rose Tyler in the first season of the new series) — they said she was too fat. Oh, really? So I don’t trust any Brit to advise me on feminine hotness to begin with.
(* Er, sorry Rachel. I forgot myself for a moment.)
March 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pmI’d wager that those were Monroe’s measurements in a long line corset/brief thing. That would take a few inches off her natural waist.
RightGirl is correct about the track suit; the pink stripe is right where it shouldn’t be.
I miss being a size 0 mostly because it gives you a rare female “bragging right”.
Right now I’m 39-29-39 and as long as I wear really well engineered, gravity defying understuff I look ok.
But it has taken me many years to get used to my new middle aged measurements. Would still like to lose those proverbial 10 pounds!
March 27th, 2008 at 6:40 pmGood point. Many women would find a 5′7″ 115 pound male to be extremely unattractive, and wouldn’t look at him twice. No offense, Skyler, but your own small frame may account for some of your distaste for curvy women. You kinda have to go with what you can actually get.
To each his/her own, right?
Beauty is completely subjective - I would say it has more to do with confidence, grace, and sensuality than with weight. I’ve seen some 20-ish swimsuit model girls enter a room fully expecting everyone to gaze upon them. Instead, they get “meh”. On the other hand, I’ve seen some confident and voluptuous women (in their 30s and 40s) who turn every single head in the room - both male and female, young and old. You won’t see their bodies on the cover of Sports Illustrated, but damn if they weren’t the hottest thing in the place!
BTW, HotAir and Ace featured some articles a few months ago that cited genetic studies that show that women with curvier bodies were statistically more intelligent and bore smarter children. Interesting, no? Made me want to go out and eat some ice cream. LOL
Not many, but here’s an article about her, wherein her figure is described as “luscious”. Here’s more from Models Plus. She’s 5′10″ with 38 DDs - any red-blooded guy that wouldn’t want to snuggle right into that can stick with his knobby-kneed, sharp-shouldered, bony-chested skeletors.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pmWhat you call plus size here is what I call a beautiful and natural woman. I can’t stand the scrawny, heroin addict look that is so popular these days.
I want my women to have curves. Most of the girls nowdays have an ass like a man and no bosom unless it is made out of silicon or saline bags.
Give me a tall woman that weighs in around at least 150 and I’m happy. If you go for the scrawny, heroin addict look you might as well be a homo. The scrawny chicks look like effiminate boys.
Not for me. I like a full size girl.
Joe
March 27th, 2008 at 7:16 pmDon’t believe magazines, most men do not want skinny women that have no curves and no shape.
Most men are not all that excited about the Paris Hilton types that have the same skinny butt a young skinny boy has.
I am a man, and very few of the men I know find very skinny women attractive.
Up to pleasantly chubby ( but not fat ) is very sexy to the vast majority of men.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pmYeah, because it can’t possibly be because of the pressure for young women to be thin; it can’t be advertiser’s advocating an ideal that is unhealthy.
No, it’s not a sickness, it’s a sign of bad character. Gee and I’ve been wrong all this time.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pmBonnie, I never said muscular, you are extending my comments to an extreme that I have not advocated.
Redhead, curvy is not the same as fat. These women are fat. Curves are good, fat is bad.
Kris, no it is not an issue of pressure. A person is responsible for his or her own behavior and blaming others for their own puking or starving is just feel-goodism. Yes, you’ve been wrong all this time.
Someone asked if Marilyn would consent to being seen with me. Frankly, that’s irrelevent since she’s fat and her opinion on such a topic is moot. She is a flabby, fat-faced, woman. She “might” have a good personality, but lots of women have personality. The trick is to both have personality AND look respectable that merits respect.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pmThat girl is absolutely gorgeous.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pmNo ring on her finger…hmmm
To elaborate on Skyler’s latest point, in response to Kris’ earlier statement:
I was raised with the idea that conforming to the herd due to ‘peer pressure’ was a sign of bad character. It’s a value that I intend to pass on to my progeny. As Skyler pointed out, nobody can make you do something you don’t want to do… and if your friends and the media say it’s okay to puke to get thin, or any of the other various self-destructive behaviors that people engage in to feel ‘cool’, that doesn’t absolve you of your responsibility to rationally take a look at what they want you to do and say, “Huh, I don’t think that’s right,” then (most importantly) not engage in that action.
Nobody’s holding the finger to the back of your throat. You have to put it there.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pmOK, I’m not going to get sucked into the same tired old Internet debate over what constitutes an officially good-looking female figure (and the tired old side-debate over what the secret preferences must really be of everyone who disagrees with one’s own preference).
But I went over to the Models Plus site to see if there was any more of Miss Surrey on display (lovely girl, a little bigger than I usually prefer but not deal-breakingly so), but didn’t see her at first. When I clicked on the “plus size” link to see if she was there, though, some of the women in that category I wouldn’t describe as “plus-sized” at all, even though they’re listed as size 14 to 18, and many of them look better than 97% of the women you see on the street every day in their age range. “Katie D,” for instance, at size 14/16, or “Katia O,” at size 14, or “Ashley B,” at size 12 — they have great figures, and none of them will want for male attention.
As for “Anne-Marie L,” at size 14 (and 5′11″ tall), “Elisa D,” size uncertain (listed as “3″ but that’s got to be a mistake), or “Sophie W.” at size 14 … good Lord. If I pulled someone looking like any of those three out of a party, I would make damn sure everybody I knew saw me leaving with her. So, so hot.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pmMarilyn was beautiful. The fat broad in the other picture is a cow.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pmUnless I’m a girl’s clinical psychologist or close friend, that’s a distinction without a difference.
EDIT: Completely irrelevant to the conversation here, but I’ve noticed that, in discussing celebrities on the Anonymous Interweb who don’t meet the anorexic ideal, there’s almost a gender-line breakdown in the difference of opinion; we guys nearly all will say “yeah, she’s hot”, while girls will reach for their thesaurus and look up “bovine” and “lard”.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pmI’m debating whether to even bother going any further with this conversation, because there’s nothing at all to be gained by pointing out the obvious…
…but Skyler’s language is so emphatically know-it-all and egregiously judgmental, that I simply must poke the
bearcub.Skyler, you’re a Marine, a hard-charger - I like that. But right now you’re being an unbearably macho asshole, and I have to say, you’re hardly in a position to judge, dear. I browsed your website - and the photos of yourself and your tiny little cars that no grown man could fit into - and much is revealed.
So Marilyn’s hypothetical opinion is moot because she’s “fat” and you therefore don’t care what someone like her would think.
Hmmmm…Let’s put that same “logic” to work here:
Perhaps as an under-sized little fella, your opinion on the proper physique for a normal-sized female is moot, as well. Just sayin’… there are few women that would care.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:07 pmKid yourselves all you like but both pictures above are of overweight women.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:20 pmAlso, Monroe’s weight was not a constant.
See?
Marilyn Monroe once said; “The body is meant to be seen, not all covered up.”
So in that spirit and to lighten the mood a little bit, here’s a nekkid pic of Marilyn that oughta cheer everyone up. Don’t click, Skyler - at 5′5″ and 135 pounds, she’s “fat and flabby”. Eww.
Whoops, I know it’s gross, but here’s another look at those famous, multi-million dollar thunder thighs.
No woman’s weight ever is.
BTW, she’s a teen-ager in that pic.
I’m kinda curious if men find her teen-aged body more or less alluring than when she was 30 years old and 25 pounds heavier?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:28 pmSkylar_ I find it hard to visualize a 5′7″ 117lb. 2nd Lt., straight out of OCS, without seriously crackin’ up. It puts me in mind of the Bill Mauldin cartoon w/a 2nd John who looks like that standing by Willy & Joe; and Joe says to Willy, “He’s right, Willy. When we ain’t fightin’ we otta try to look like sojers”. I went into basic at 5′6″ 127lbs. Eight weeks later: 5′6″ 155lbs. (age 18) Now, I’m 63 years old, 5′6″, 155lbs. However, according to you, I must be of low character because I HATE to exercise (and even in the Army avoided it whenever possible after training), always (until 7 years ago) drank to excess, ate rich foods; and I still smoke. At 155lbs, my men listened to me when I spoke. Had I been a 117lb butterbar, they probably wouldn’t have.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:54 pmMiss England is a quite attractive woman. Perhaps not ravishingly beautiful (so few women really are) - but I wouldn’t mind playing a little slap-and-tickle with her anytime (if you get my drift). To me Marilyn was always a very good-looking woman, but not my ideal.[Kim Novak is another story!]
Haven’t read comments yet, but sorry to say both appear to be overweight to me. Not normal or average in any way.
But I agree wholeheartedly that clothing mfrs are on crack when they size, and that they size for egos. I weigh 145 (a little high for me), and I’m tallish but not really tall, and I fit very comfortably into a size SIX jeans from Tommy Hilfiger. That’s just a joke.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:01 amMy Google-fu is still on, so here’s a little sumthin’ just for you, Bill: a scantily clad Kim Novak with some thighs that I’m sure would intimidate the hell out of a lesser man.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 amPorkers! Never liked how MM looked. Hate me all you want, but while skinny is not apealing, neither is cherubesque.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:41 amSkyler,
Lemme guess…. during your time as an enlisted man, you were never the guy picked to carry the ‘60 or the mortar plate?
(I was 6′2″ and 185 lbs when I graduated Basic)
March 28th, 2008 at 4:35 amSkyler and Oatworm: neither of you are girls, obviously. While it’s true that the only one who can control their behavior is the individual - believe me I’m all about personal responsibility - the fact is peer pressure for girls is a huge problem, has been for years.
I knew the entire time I was not eating in high school that it was wrong, that I needed to eat to stay healthy - and I couldn’t help myself to stop. I looked at my friends - all naturally thin - and wanted to be like them so I did what I thought I had to do to fit in. Guys will never understand that concept when it comes to body image.
Girls are assaulted everywhere they go by images of impossible ideals of body image. And by guys like you - who think a size 12 or 14 is fat and sloppy and shows bad character.
I and girls like me may not have shown good judgement for the choices we made, but that doesn’t make our characters bad.
Just flawed. And I submit much less flawed than people like Oatworm and Skyler; I accept that people aren’t perfect. Clearly people like the 2 of you deem anyone who doesn’t fit your ideal mold of perfection as possessing bad character and lacking in personal responsibility.
We can agree to disagree on what makes a woman - or a man - beautiful and sexy. But when you start making statements like doctors encouraging people to be fat over being anorexic, or that having an eating disorder means you have bad character - then you are being, as Redhead Infidel put it so articulately - macho assholes.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:10 amMore pics of Miss Surrey can be found here.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:32 amRedhead said,
Well, yeah. Duh. These are opinions. Why do y’all care what I think? I don’t care if you agree, I’m just telling you what I think.
I was never enlisted. And yes, being that small is not perceived as good for a male, but it is perceived as good for a female. My point was that being that small is not per se unhealthy, no matter how it is subjectively perceived.
Kris said,
I never said that being fat or anorexic is a good thing. Both are signs of poor character.
Actually, making poor judgments is what having bad character means.
That’s a big problem. I’m glad you got yourself straightened out.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:17 amSkyler - you are a world class jerk. You don’t get to impugn someone’s entire character for making bad decisions. Making poor judgments means someone may not have all the facts, that someone is operating out of a position of passion or worry rather than rational thought.
Having bad character is what you have, for making such harsh generalities about things you clearly don’t understand.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:57 amSpeaking to character and judgement, isn’t that something that has to be taught? For example, if you’re a 5 foot tall 110 lb. teenage female, and your father calls you fat, and rags on you about getting fat every time you eat, and nags your mother for being fat, and the boys in school call you fat, where exactly is a girl to learn the “character” to deal with that and stand up to it and the “judgement” to make better choices than starving herself?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:10 amKris, thanks for the kind words. I’m only telling you the truth. I’m sorry you don’t like it. It appears no one has told you that before and you now resent it. Oh well.
It would appear, but I don’t know because I don’t know you, that you have been told that your failure to take responsibility for your own actions was someone else’s fault besides your own. In this you would be wrong, and if true it is tragic. Please don’t teach your children that they can blame others for their actions. We have too many like that in the world already.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:11 amAnalog brings up a good point. There is a point where you can blame your parents, but that ends at a time when you mature. This is a different time for everyone, but it does end and no matter how bad your parents were to allow you to starve yourself or get fat, you become responsible for it yourself once your brain has grown and developed to a sufficient level.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:18 amWhenever I’ve read articles on someone’s before and after weight loss I’m surprised when I see someone that is approx. my height and weight and they then list the person’s clothing size which is way lower than mine!
It all depends on the clothing line like you said - just b/c you have one dress in a size 5 does not mean you are a size 5.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:45 amKris - you’re right. I’m not a girl. However, contrary to what you might think, guys have to deal with peer pressure in their younger years, too. The focus is just different - replace “body issues” with “reckless borderline suicidal behavior”. There’s a reason “Jackass” is such a popular show.
I’m not going to speak for Skyler here, but I will speak for myself. The big differences between those that are flawed and those with bad character is, from where I’m sitting, as follows:
1. Do you know what you’re doing is wrong?
2. Are you still doing what you know is wrong even though you know it’s wrong?
If the answer to either 1 or 2 is “no”, you’re not exhibiting bad character in my book. Because of #2, I also believe that bad character is a temporary condition. When many of us are young, we frequently engage in behavior that reflects poor character - myself included. The difference is whether or not we pull our heads out of our asses and start doing what we know is right and good for ourselves. It sounds like you figured that out, and I’m happy to hear that. I’ve met quite a few people that don’t, and it’s really sad to watch.
In short, yes, I’m an asshole, but I’m a reasonable asshole.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:24 amI’ve met a number of former Playboy centerfold models. By fashion-modeling standards, they’re all a good twenty pounds overweight. I once ran into one who had just come back from runway work in Italy, and they’d made her lose more than thirty pounds. She’d gained half of it back, and still looked horribly thin. I wanted to sit her down and feed her chocolate cake until she was sexy again.
And, yes, they all lie about their weight and measurements in the magazine. They have the same self-image problems other women do, complicated by photographers who ruthlessly point out their flaws during a nude shoot. One friend has a polaroid of what she looked like from behind during her mid-Eighties centerfold shoot: her back was covered with the tape they’d used to “clean up” her shape (something that would mostly be done in Photoshop these days).
If you want to see a realistic 90-pound woman, try the four-foot-nine Japanese actress Mari Yaguchi.
-j
March 28th, 2008 at 11:36 amLadies, Paris is an empty-headed skank with nothing to contribute to society. The beneficiary of millions is a parasite. She’s about as sexy as heel spurs (and equally painful).
I don’t know at what point skin-and-bones became sexy, but to me, real women have curves.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amNow, don’t be so hard on Paris. She does have something to contribute… to the study of infectious disease.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pmI never said I didn’t take responsibility for my own actions - at some point I did recognize they were dangerous and I stopped. Not everyone has that luxury - eating disorders are an illness, arguably a mental illness. That requires counseling (something I would recommend for you for your oversized ego and undersized…) and support to overcome.
You’re right, you don’t know me (I have something to be thankful for today, don’t I). I’m being relatively nice here because this isn’t my bandwidth and Rachel is a gracious host. But you keep attacking my character and I’ll stop being so nice - and I’ll tip Rachel for chewing up her bandwidth in such an unseemly fashion.
You seem to like the truth, so here’s some for you: You are an egregiously arrogant asshole.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pmAnalog Mouse: thank you for putting into words what I haven’t been able to. The situtation you suggest above - is what I endured.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pmI’m with Kris and Analog Mouse and the others on this: the thing with the eating disorders we’re talking about is that we’re talking about YOUNG girl, teenagers and younger, who don’t have a fully-formed character or judgment, and are prone to making very bad decisions based on peer pressure. It’s what teenagers do, and it happens to manifest itself with girls in this way above most others.
And those of you who say Marilyn Monroe was “fat” - you are seriously fucked in the head.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pmMy $0.02 worth. I’m 6′1″ and 230 pounds, although no one can believe I actually weigh that much. My wife is 5′2″ and, because of having her thyroid removed and various other medical conditions, weighs about 150 pounds more or less (I’m not stupid, I’m not asking her). When we were married almost 22 years ago, I weighed about 160 pounds and she weighed about 115. To me, she is still the most beautiful woman in the world, and will remain so until I am no longer among the living. She gained weight, I gained weight. It’s called living, folks, and raising children. Like I said, my $0.02.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pmI did notice Marilyn’s thighs are on the bigger side than ideal, but she is still attractive. The thing that gets me (in the picture Rachel posted of her), is that her legs seem quite sunburned, and the lighting is sort of on the harsh contrast side. Not a good picture of her (but I understand that it might be the closest in pose to miss Surrey, so useful for comparison). I’ve seen other pictures of her, and she is very attractive.
Since we are dealing with such a highly subjective topic, I’ll throw in some of my opinions.
The closest to a physicaly perfect (personally) woman I’ve ever seen on film is Jennifer Connely. She was cute before her surgies, attractive, nothing to complain about. But in her roles after her surgeries (like The Rocketeer) she’s just the closest to perfection (from my personal tastes) as I’ve seen on film. I am in no means advocating plastic surgery, just noting that it didn’t hurt her, like it does others.
As far as natural curves, I think Laura Pepron in that 70’s show is a great example of cute, and sexy (would have hit on a girl looking like her before any other of the starlets being discussed), especially before she bleached herself blond. Thin can be attractive too. I don’t care for Paris (she looks like a mannequin), but I do find Allison Hannigan, for example, very attractive, and she’s thin (not quite rail thing, but skinny).
Of course we are discussing different things. There are 3 to 4 categories to consider: how cute she is, how sexy she is, how beautiful she is, and how alluring she is. None of these are mutually exclusive. Imagine pictures in a magazine. If you see it, and your first thought is how you want to rut with her, she ranks high on sexy. That’s well and good, as far as it goes, but creates the “butter-face” syndrome. Beauty is something you appreciate like art, but wouldn’t necessarily want to spend time with. Cute is that which grabs your attention, makes you smile, makes you just “like” them. And allure is that difficult to describe presence, a combination of posture, grace, and attitude.
I personally prefer cute, and cute-alluring, to sexy or beautiful. I’d rather Natalie Portman, or Scarlett Johanson for instance, to Pamela Anderson (in her prime) or Mariah Carey, and I’d prefer all of these to Paris hilton, or the razor-blade of annorexic Nicole Ritchie.
All that said, I wouldn’t do for any of them. I’m 5′9″ 185 pounds, with some good muscle in my legs, but mostly average to less-than average muscle mass everywhere else. Add in I’m pasty-white, and I’m simply not physically attractive. I’m very plain-average. The kind of person you’d forget you saw if you passed me on the street. Or the kind of person you met for the first time on several different occasions. There is some comfort in that. Ugly registers, you remember that. So while not Brad Pitt (or who ever the hell the heart-throb of the day is), I’m at least not Davy-Jones.
Not that any of you care.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pmThe British girl looks like she could be the starting nose-tackle for 1985 Chicago Bears, so yeah she’s pretty damn big. Must suck being a chick really, I mean that in a totally non-sarcastic way.
What’s great about women, as compared to men, is that they don’t care how fat or thin a man is, they see through all of that, and look directly at his bank statement. Okay cheap shot, feel bad really sorry.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pmATTENTION RACHEL: THIS IS NOT JUST “GIRL STUFF”
I’m a guy. My Lady has an eating disorder. Now, she’s contrary. She compulsively OVEREATS (unless she’s on top of it, which she generally is). but the root of the problem are similar to a lot of women who are anorexic or one of the other “too thin” variations; childhood abuse.
TO THE FASION INDUSTRY, AND ALL THE OTHER SWINE WHO DISTORT WOMENS’ SENSE OF THEIR OWN BODIES:
I have spent entirely too much time in rooms full of adult women who look like 12 year old elf children. This may not be all your fault, but it is substantially your fault, and you are all going to hell for it.
I get tired to the point of tears of attractive, healthy women who hate themselves because they “Are so fat”. It makes me want to hit somebody. Repeatedly. With an axe.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pmYum! rubenesque,sexy.One man’s trash is
another man’s treasure.Different men are attracted
to different women shapes.Not everyone likes
barbiedoll figures.
luv you long time,Rachel
March 28th, 2008 at 6:59 pmKris, thanks for the continued kind words. I guess that’s part of character, too.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pmI was in a Outback restaurant one night a few years ago and got to talking with the waitress.
When I asked her how her day was going she said she was pretty bummed because she had been shopping all day for a dress and couldn’t find anything attractive in her size. She said she was a size 14/16 and none of the good stores had anything larger than size 8 that was attractive enough to be worth buying.
I told her that she shouldn’t worry about not being able to fit into a size 8 dress.
When she asked me why not I replied, “When a man puts his arms around his lady he doesn’t want to be worrying about slicing his wrists on her shoulder blades.”
When I paid my bill she refused to accept a tip.
otpu
March 28th, 2008 at 9:55 pmNumber of pounds is, pardon the pun, a really bad metric. Muscle is denser than fat. Some women can carry a fair bit of fat well. Others beome skinny-fat (a thin frame with a big butt and/or gut). What looks bad is visible cellulite, flabbiness and being generally out of proportion - If a woman has a strong frame (ie shoulders and chest cavity) she can carry more weight for her height and still look good. Most male fashion designers aren’t really into women anyway - they see them as statues or clothes-hangers, not sex objects, so the women they choose are often not particularly sexy. It’s also why underwear and nekkid mondels tend to be a lot bigger (in the right places) than runway models.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:33 pmThat’s right. Excellent point.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:27 amI would soooo hit that. The word is “junoesque” Real women have curves. I don’t want a woman that looks like a 12 year old boy with implants. The “modern” ideal of beauty is preverse. Bony skanks are not sexy.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pmA whole lot of talking past each other here. I’m a guy, and I’m married to a petite woman, but with that out of the way, here goes…
Much as genetics plays a big part in who’s pretty and who isn’t, when it comes to bodies, healthy is what does it for me. Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are both hot, with very different body types. The thing is that both are fit, making the most of their individual body types and genetics.
Too much fat is unhealthy. So is too little.
I say, parents, get your girls into sports. They’ll have less time to get into trouble, they’re less likely to smoke or pick up other unhealthy habits, and they’ll learn right off the bat that your body isn’t just for looking at, it’s for doing stuff. And when they’re in a healthy activity with a bunch of other healthy peers who are more into performance than posing, it makes it a lot tougher for the fashion mags and other crappy influences to mess with their heads about body-image.
Function should shape form, not the other way around.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pmI thought that meant looking like a statue….isn’t Rubenesque the more appropriate term for her?
By the way, though I won’t get into the definition of beauty v health etc. I will say that men’s clothier’s are performing much the same deception as women’s lately. I proudly (I thought) wear a 33/34 inch waist for my frame, a very healthy 5′8″, 180 pounds (lots of strength training and running makes for big leg muscles) but when I got measure for a suit just this weekend I was told my waist measurement was 38 inches! There’s no denying the tailor - he had the tape to prove it.
Quite the surprise. Not sure whether to shake it off knowing I am healthy, just “thick in the middle” or be depressed thinking my daily workouts aren’t paying off. I now have a taste of the misery many women go through.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:50 pmMarilyn Monroe did not look like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=552792&in_page_id=1773&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5
While I support advocating acceptance for non-anorexic looking women, this girl is overweight. Doesn’t make her unattractive, but strictly medically speaking she definitely qualifies as overweight.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pmI think that Miss England is beautiful. She’s got great curves, a wonderful smile, and I’ll bet she’s got it going on between the ears. I’d rather promanade with her on a Saturday night than Paris Hilton any day. I prefer a lady who accepts herself as nature intended, rather than somebody who forces themselves to adhere to somebody else’s idea of beauty.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pmStrictly medically speaking, Arnold Schwarzenegger is overweight, and was even at the height of his bodybuilding career. Remember that.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm