# Is a female size 16 fat?



## Curiosa (18 Apr 2005)

I know this seems a strange one, but myself and my friend were having an argument last night. She maintains that a woman who is a size 16 is fat, while I believe that a size 16 is more curvy than overweight, and I think curvy can be very nice. Basically my friend thinks that anything over a sie 12 is overweight. I feel this is very narrow-minded. What does anyone else think?

By the way, we are both female and size 12


----------



## demoivre (18 Apr 2005)

in my local gym its the body mass index thats used to determine whether you are overweight or not. Check it out http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm


----------



## Summer (18 Apr 2005)

If you are 5ft and size 16 you are fat. If you are 5ft 10ins and size 16 possibly not. Rolls of skin around the waist are normally a good indication


----------



## BlueSpud (18 Apr 2005)

Your friend sounds like a right judemental cow.  Tell her to find more interesting thisngs to think/talk about, like rule 42.


----------



## Curiosa (18 Apr 2005)

Summer said:
			
		

> If you are 5ft and size 16 you are fat.



This is the kind of statement that the friend I am talking about usually makes ...


----------



## casiopea (19 Apr 2005)

Curiosa said:
			
		

> This is the kind of statement that the friend I am talking about usually makes ...



I think it is more accurate to say if you are 5ft and size 16 you are unhealthy.  Im not 100% certain how unhealthy (ie if its dangerous) but you're putting pressure on your heart and you'd probably find that there are things you'd like to do that you cant.  

The Body Mass Index is a good indication to follow above.


----------



## DOBBER22 (19 Apr 2005)

"If you are 5ft and size 16 you are fat" 
I have a friend that would say "Yeah but they need lovin too"


----------



## Janet (19 Apr 2005)

Well, I'm 5'9" and when I eventually manage to lose enough to be a healthy (and slim) weight I expect to be about a size 16 (that would be a Dunnes Stores type 16).  I was just about this tall and a size 16 when I was 12 years old and certainly was not fat at that stage.  Besides, as I'm sure you already know, the differences between sizings in different shops are so big it's somewhat facile to judge "fatness" based on dress size.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

I think it is all about feeling good about yourself, and trying to look your best. There are some fabulous size 16's out there - I mean wasn't Marilyn Monroe size 16??? And look at Queen Latifah...I think she always looks great.


----------



## Cahir (19 Apr 2005)

To be honest I've no problem with other people being a size 16 but if I ever went above my size (8-10) I'd be upset.  I know that's probably not the most "correct" view to have but it's really how I feel.  Then again, I'm only short so any extra weight would make me look awful.


----------



## michaelm (19 Apr 2005)

In fairness if you're 4ft 6 and size 16 you're likely to be unhealthy/overweight/fat, whichever sounds less judgemental to you, but if you're 6ft 4 and size 16 you're unlikely to be fat.  It's not just all about feeling good about yourself but also realising that if you're overweight of obese that you are probably doing damage to your health.  As stated previously BMI may be a good indicator, another BMI calculator and some BMI info can be found here . .


----------



## Crunchie (19 Apr 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> To be honest I've no problem with other people being a size 16 but



No offence intended cahir but that's the classic opening we hear so often in respect of non nationals, gays, etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how insecure people can get on the topic of weight and clothes size.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

michaelm said:
			
		

> It's not just all about feeling good about yourself but also realising that if you're overweight of obese that you are probably doing damage to your health


 
I accept this point - but are you in some way saying that if you are a size 16 then you are not entitled to feel good about yourself? I think that even though the statistics available would suggest that Irish people are getting bigger and bigger, our obsession with thin-ness is also growing. I'm a size 12 on top and 14 on the bottom and I'm 5'7'... but does that mean I should never feel good about myself and should try and be a size 10 all over?????


----------



## sully (19 Apr 2005)

I thought all fat people were just bigboned or it was a glandular thing or a hereditary problem and not the fault of an unhealthy lifestyle.

And just cos your a size 16 doesn't neccessary mean a person is curvy. there is a an awfull lot of fat people with small boobs and curves in all the wrong areas. and if the curves are in the belly region they call them spare tyres....

so if girls were happy being a larger size why do they try so hard to fit into the smallest size they can. you see loads of people wearing clothes that are too small for them. Or the sizes in the shop are wrong cos normally they are a 14 etc etc!! 

Why is it that its seemingly ok to call someone skinny and by saying that implying that they have no figure but if you call someone fat the world goes mad and they are refferred as curvy or voluptous and so on or that they are Real women. 

its always healthier being thinner than fatter and you are beginning to see now that weight issues are linked with your social standing. ie poor people/less educated are getting fatter than rich/educated people.

Personally i think if a person is happy being overweight thats fine, but truly i doubt if any of them are otherwise there would be no diet industry...


----------



## Cahir (19 Apr 2005)

Crunchie said:
			
		

> No offence intended cahir but that's the classic opening we hear so often in respect of non nationals, gays, etc.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how insecure people can get on the topic of weight and clothes size.




Where did race, sex etc come into it.  I just don't want to be overweight and I look after myself so that it doesn't happen.  I couldn't care less if someone else is bigger - doesn't affect me at all.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

sully said:
			
		

> Why is it that its seemingly ok to call someone skinny and by saying that implying that they have no figure but if you call someone fat the world goes mad and they are refferred as curvy or voluptous and so on or that they are Real women.


 
Re: Real Women ....I happen to think that curves are more womanly than skinny is. I mean Nigella Lawson and Catherine Zeta Jones are "real women" and they are not size 10 or size 12


----------



## Crunchie (19 Apr 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> Where did race, sex etc come into it.



"Fat" is yet another label we apply to people who don't conform to what we accept as the norm. If a person is fat (or indeed anything else) it doesn't really matter if Cahir or anyone else has a problem with it.


----------



## Cahir (19 Apr 2005)

Crunchie said:
			
		

> "Fat" is yet another label we apply to people who don't conform to what we accept as the norm. If a person is fat (or indeed anything else) it doesn't really matter if Cahir or anyone else has a problem with it.




Exactly my point - couldn't care less, therefore don't have any problem with it.  
Like I said I'm a size 8/10 but I couldn't be called skinny cos I'm short (5'2") and have big boobs so I'm often called curvy.  Each to their own.


----------



## Crunchie (19 Apr 2005)

Good for you Cahir!!

Someone mentioned in a "Less Posts on AAM" thread that it was losing a bit of it's character and banter so that's my contribution to s**t stirring for today. Ah well ........ back to work.


----------



## michaelm (19 Apr 2005)

Crunchie said:
			
		

> "Fat" is yet another label we apply to people who don't conform to what we accept as the norm.



This is PC nonsense.  'Fat' is a descriptive term for someone who is evidently overweight whether they are comfortable with the fact or not.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

I'm going to totally stick my neck out now but ..... I would rather be a beautiful / pretty size 16 than an average looking size 10 or 12 any day! 
(As I said I'm 12 on top, 14 on bottom, so I'm not talking about myself, just in general!)


----------



## Crunchie (19 Apr 2005)

michaelm said:
			
		

> 'Fat' is a descriptive term for someone who is evidently overweight whether they are comfortable with the fact or not.



You're spot on michaelm but don't try to deny that, as with any descriptive term, it can be used in a derogatory fashion.


----------



## sully (19 Apr 2005)

Noor77 said:
			
		

> I'm going to totally stick my neck out now but ..... I would rather be a beautiful / pretty size 16 than an average looking size 10 or 12 any day!
> (As I said I'm 12 on top, 14 on bottom, so I'm not talking about myself, just in general!)


 
so your saying that you would rather be goodlooking and fat rather than being average and healthy!

Also i totally agree that curves are womanly, however i dont think you have to be a size 16 to have curves. IMO a girl can have curves at any size whether its a size 8/10 or whatever size just as fat girls can be flatchested with big assess ie pear shaped. 

Most women who claim they are real women and curvy IMO are neither as they are generally just round and straight down, with their bellies prodding out beyond their boobs.  IMO curvy is the hourglass figure and not the pearshape or apple shape as most women a size 16 are...


----------



## MissRibena (19 Apr 2005)

I find a lot of sully's comments pretty offensive (which, perversely, is great really cos I've missed the debates on AAM).



The word "fat" is unhelpful because it is not a descriptive "fact" but a subjective descriptive term, often used in a derogatory sense. As we have seen here, one person's "fat" is another's "curvy".  The word "overweight" is medically defined, so causes much less problems. Nobody was called "overweighty" in the school playground!  I think people here are blurring the line between beauty and obesity.  I reckon the original poster's "friend" is really asking "Is a size 16 female ugly?", which is a pretty pathetic conversation to be having in the first place, IMHO.



A woman size 16 may or may not be overweight; she would need to consult her BMI to know.  Dress sizes are notoriously unreliable and anyone judging their body mass by them is wasting their time.  In any case, it is her own business.  



Rebecca


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

MissRibena said:
			
		

> I find a lot of sully's comments pretty offensive (which, perversely, is great really cos I've missed the debates on AAM).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Totally agree with you Miss Ribena ..... I was only saying the beautiful / big....thin / average thing to show people how narrow minded the whole issue is.I'm guessing Sully is a male of the species


----------



## shnaek (19 Apr 2005)

Fat is fat. But fat really isn't the point. Male or female, we should be healthy and well toned. We all know whether we are overwieight or not. I am 12stn and over 6ft tall but I know I need to tone up. In Ireland today we pretty much all need to do more exercise.
I am a firm believer in eastern philosophy which says that you cannot have a healthy mind without a healthy body and vice versa.
So whether a woman is size 16 or size 12, if she is healthy and toned she will know herself whether she is 'fat' or not.


----------



## thehill (19 Apr 2005)

nigella lawson.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

thehill said:
			
		

> nigella lawson.


 
??? Was there supposed to be something else with this?!!!


----------



## sully (19 Apr 2005)

thehill said:
			
		

> nigella lawson.


 
If Nigella lawson was proud to be the way she is then why are all the programs i have seen of her in, she is wearing black a notorious slimming trick and wearing heels another slimming trick and also notice the camera work, any full body shots are always in soft focus/blurred and from a distance and any close up shots of her are basically head shots and cleavage. A woman is not curvy if her waist is larger than her hips and chest. I doubt any woman that is a size 16 has a BMI less than 25 which is the highest healthy BMI.

I think its hilarious than people get on their high horses over calling someone overweight(Fat I will stop using this term as i dont want to offend) But these same people think nothing of refferring to thin girls as "skin and bones" "skinny" and that they dont have curves.

Lets take a few figures here
I reckon a size 8 girl at 5'7" would be approx 10and a 1/2 stone a healthy BMI of  23 
so lets just say a half stone(it should be more like 3/4 stone) increase for every dress size which is a fair assumption so that would make a size 16 girl at 5'7" a weight of 12 and a 1/2 stone and an overweight BMI of over 27.


----------



## Noor77 (19 Apr 2005)

sully said:
			
		

> Lets take a few figures here
> I reckon a size 8 girl at 5'7" would be approx 10and a 1/2 stone a healthy BMI of 23
> so lets just say a half stone(it should be more like 3/4 stone) increase for every dress size which is a fair assumption so that would make a size 16 girl at 5'7" a weight of 12 and a 1/2 stone and an overweight BMI of over 27.


 

Oh dear Sully, if you are a guy (as I imagine you probably are), I really, really, really pity your girlfriend / your future girlfriends. I would hate to go out with someone like you! I went out with a male model before and I guess I was kind of paranoid that my size 14 bottom half and size 12 upper half weren't exactly what he would be used to....but he was totally miffed when I mentioned this to him and said that as far as he was concerned some of the female models that he worked with were just one step removed from being totally masculine in shape and he preferred me any day  !!!


----------



## sully (19 Apr 2005)

Noor77 said:
			
		

> Oh dear Sully, if you are a guy (as I imagine you probably are), I really, really, really pity your girlfriend / your future girlfriends. I would hate to go out with someone like you! I went out with a male model before and I guess I was kind of paranoid that my size 14 bottom half and size 12 upper half weren't exactly what he would be used to....but he was totally miffed when I mentioned this to him and said that as far as he was concerned some of the female models that he worked with were just one step removed from being totally masculine in shape and he preferred me any day  !!!


 
That reminds me of what every guy says when they are asked does my bum look big in this(but saying a little white lie is good cos i am sure that you had other qualities that he did find attractive and this argument is not about looks for me its about health.). and all i am saying is that there is no way that a size 16 person can be a healthy weight according to BMI stats, and the lower the BMI the healthier a person generally is.


----------



## OhPinchy (19 Apr 2005)

I wonder why this person is asking is a size 16 fat. to me the question is more 'can a size 16 lady be attractive?', and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder they certainly can be. the reason I say this is I reckon if you told the person ' yes you are fat but youre very attractive' theyd be quite happy as I suspect their underlying motive is to feel that they are desirable. And certainly theres plenty of people out there who find larger women desirable, everyone out there is desired by someone so this person should IMO not be looking for external validation to feel good about themselves - "am I happy with myself" is a far more pertinent question than "are others happy with/attracted to me".

I feel physically better when I'm in good shape and this has a positive affect mentally aswell and I suspect that many overweight people would feel better with the sense of pride and achievement they would feel if they got in shape. Likewise theres plenty of overweight people happy the way they are, and so long as their health is not in danger, good luck to them I say.

However, I for one would not be physically attracted to size 16 women and, if they are honest, most men would admit the same, un-PC as it may be. I'm not attracted to women who are rake thin either but I find the backlash against skinny women (e.g. "she's too skinny its terrible") just as bad as any derogatory remarks about fat women. Oh and for the record, I use the word fat as a descriptive term and refer to someone who is carrying some extra weight as 'overweight', someone who is carrying a lot of extra weight 'fat', and someone who is dangerously overweight as 'obese'


----------



## sully (19 Apr 2005)

You know if you are so happy with your figure, then why feel the need  to open a discussion on your stats  with complete  strangers on the net??!! Personally I don't need to validate my own body image in such a sad way. I am beautiful, intelligent and slim.You can have it all if you want it. My advice to you would be to sort out your self-esteem issues from the inside out. Mrs.Sully.


----------



## car (19 Apr 2005)

look, we all know girls that are fat and guys that are fat, some take offense others openly call themselves fat and laugh at it.  Is it just the language we use today that some take offense at some words (not just fat?) is it just whats politically correct today? it must be.  I love a good debate as much as next but I take offense when some says " I take offense to that term" as it is only the language of the day whether the term was used derogatively or not.  Read Bill brysons "mother tongue" to find some examples of what victorians take offense to to find out the whether its the language or the meaning behind it.  


some questions
what do people find offensive, the word "fat" or the association that they think it meant "ugly"?
What term would not offend to describe one who was overweight?   
If one person finds a "fat" person attractive but another not and they still use the term "fat" is it still  politically incorrect?

And please,Im really not getting at anyone here, just interested to see the views of those who get offended at the use of the word "fat" and its ilk.

Ive found a site which lists the following terms to all those who wish to not offend.

|> aesthetically challenged - ugly
|> amphibian American - frog
|> aquatically challenged - drowning
|> biologically challenged - dead
|> bovine control officers - Dallas Cowboys
|> Caucasian Culturally-Disadvantaged - white trash
|> certified astrological consultant - crackpot
|> certified crystal therapist - crackpot
|> certified past-life regression hypnotist - crackpot
|> chronologically gifted - old
|> client of the correctional system - prisoner
|> codependent - finger-pointer
|> constructivist feminist psychotherapy - psychobabble
|> creatively re-dyed - stained
|> cyclically challenged - having PMS
|> differently organized - messy
|> differently-brained - stupid
|> economically disadvantaged - welfare bum
|> economically marginalized - poor
|> energy-efficient - off
|> environmentally correct human - dead
|> equal opportunity employee - bisexual hooker
|> erectionally challenged - impotent
|> facially challenged - ugly
|> factually unencumbered - ignorant
|> fecally plenary - full of crap
|> female gender biased - prefers women who shave their legs
|> financially inept - po'
|> folically independent - bald
|> follower of Jimmy Swaggert - lost
|> genetically discriminating - racist
|> geological correction - earthquake
|> government employee - stupid
|> grammatically challenged - one who has difficulties with grammar or (by
|>    extension) punctuation or spelling
|> gravitationally challenged - fat
|> hirsutely challenged - bald
|> horizontally challenged - thin
|> horizontally gifted - fat
|> in denial - unaware that forgetting something obviously proves it happened
|> in recovery - drunk/junkie
|> intellectually impaired - stupid
|> living impaired - dead
|> maintenance hole - man-hole
|> male gender biased - prefers men who shave their chests
|> mechanically challenged - broken down automobile
|> melanin-impoverished - white
|> metabolically challenged - dead
|> microslothically Challenged - Windows user
|> monetarily challenged - poor
|> morally (ethically) challenged - a crook
|> morally handicapped - someone who has no other reason to park in a
|>    handicapped zone
|> motivationally dispossessed - lazy
|> musically delayed - tone deaf
|> nasally disadvantaged - really BIG nose
|> nasally gifted  - runny nose
|> nasally gifted - large nose
|> nitpicklike - humor challenged
|> one who is PC - target practice
|> ontologically challenged - fictional or mythological
|> osmotically challenged - Thirsty
|> other aged - too old/young (dual purpose)
|> outdoor urban dwellers - homeless
|> people of height - too tall
|> person of region - redneck
|> person of substance - fat
|> persons living with entropy - dead
|> persons of large stature - NY Giants
|> petroleum transfer technician - gas station attendent
|> racially challenged - butt-white American
|> residentially flexible - homeless
|> rhythmically challenged - white boy
|> romantically challenged - not with somebody at the moment
|> rustically inclined - redneck
|> sanitation engineer - garbage man
|> sex care provider - prostitute
|> sexually focused chronologically gifted individual - dirty old man
|> socially challenged - geek, nerd, whatever...
|> spacially perplexed - drunk
|> street activity index - crime rate
|> suffering from a sex addiction (female) - slut
|> suffering from a sex addiction (male) - stud
|> target equity group - vocal minority
|> the absolute root of all evil known in the multidimensional infinity of
|>    reality - white male
|> uniquely coordinated - clumsy
|> uniquely fortuned individual on an alternative career path - loser
|> verbally challenged - mute, dumb
|> vertically challenged - short
|> visually challenged - blind


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

car said:
			
		

> some questions
> what do people find offensive, the word "fat" or the association that they think it meant "ugly"?
> What term would not offend to describe one who was overweight?


 
If you feel you really must comment on someone's weight, though why people don't mind their own business and live and let live is something I cannot fathom, then you've answered your own question.  Above you used "fat" in association with ugly and "overweight" when you temper the tone of the second sentence.

Don't get het up about what's PC or un-PC, it's all just about showing people a little respect.

Rebecca


----------



## OhPinchy (20 Apr 2005)

I think thats a bit too defensive. The original poster wanted to know if people regard a size 16 woman as fat and people are entitled to give their opinions and I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying there is a lack of respect in these opinions. 

I for one have explained that I use the term ‘fat’ to describe someone who is carrying a lot of extra weight, and since this extra weight takes the form of fat I find it a fairly accurate description. I describe someone with a bit of extra weight (as mentioned before - the BMI gives a good indication of this) as overweight, so I guess I could use the term 'very overweight' for fat people. The terms ‘large’ and ‘heavy’ are not accurate in this instance as you can be both large and heavy without being fat (for example I’d say the Williams sisters are both fairly big women and their muscle mass means they would be relatively heavy, but they both have fantastic bodies with not a pick of fat on them). If a woman is quite short and does not have a very large frame and is still a size 16 she is likely to be carrying a lot of extra weight and so I would describe her as fat.

I don’t see how accurately describing someone’s appearance is offensive unless, of course, it is used in a derogatory manner, but if you take that line then I guess if someone with ginger hair asks you what colour their hair is you’d say ‘strawberry blonde’.

Of course if someone asked me were they fat I’d put it more diplomatically just to ensure they don’t take offence where none is intended, but if they demanded an honest answer I would see no reason not to use the word fat. I completely fail to see how this is perceived as a lack of respect for fat people so long as the intention is not to cause offence (i.e. can I then not call someone who is.6ft 9inches ‘tall’ due to the fact they got some abuse in school over being ‘lanky’?).


----------



## shnaek (20 Apr 2005)

It is also about people getting easily offended these days. It can be very refreshing to hear people speak their mind regardless of what people think of their opinion or what languauge they use. Just as long as they respect other peoples opinions and the language other people chose to use. Sometimes it's nice to hear people tell it like they see it. That's why I find Hyde Park corner so entertaining. I even enjoy Ian O'Dohertys column in the indo, even though often I don't agree with his views.


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

I dunno guys ... it's one thing expressing an opinion, another thing is deliberately using offensive-ish words to attract a bit of attention or being too lazy to figure out the correct terminology to use or being just plain old-fashioned ignorant. Kevin Myers anyone? If people are expressing an _opinion _as opposed to stating a _fact_, then "fat" is acceptable. But the question, as I understood it, wasn't asking for an opinion, it asked for an edict on whether a size 16 female was fat, which is not possible.

"I completely fail to see how this is perceived as a lack of respect for fat people so long as the intention is not to cause offence"
If you really don't want to offend, maybe it would be safer to use a word with less offensive connotations then .. just to be on the safe side and avoid people misconstruing your simple statement as something more judgement-laden. Like I said, nobody was called "overweighty" as a taunt. A term is offensive if someone (the object) finds it offensive, regardless of the intentions of the subject.

And yes it's a minefield and difficult to keep track of what words are the best to use and it changes over time but that doesn't mean we should just stop trying and use whatever words suit us. I think if we want to debate the nuances of something like this, then we have to be prepared to take the time to measure our language. That's the kind of respect I meant really.

My mother genuinely doesn't intend any offense when she calls travellers "tinkers" but I still cringe at that too and remind her that other people will think she means something she doesn't.

Rebecca


----------



## OhPinchy (20 Apr 2005)

eh, as for the original poster's intention - it doesn't really get any clearer than this now does it "What does anyone else think?"?

The poster is looking for honest OPINIONS and since this is all done anonymously then theres plenty of scope to be candid.

the "tinkers" point is a red herring - that is a case of prejudice involving labelling a person based on their perceived membership of a certain social group.

The Myers point is also an unfair comparison as the B word he used is generally regarded as a curse word and its use is rarely intended to cause anything but hurt. When used as merely a descriptive term, the word fat is an accurate physical description of some people and can be used in a non offensive manner. 

"A term is offensive if someone (the object) finds it offensive, regardless of the intentions of the subject." I disagree - IMO a term is offensive only if its intent can be reasonably interpreted as offensive. 

For instance, I have a male friend who is very short. Does this mean I cannot use the word 'short' to describe his appearance in case he takes offence to this.

To summarise....if I was asked by the police to give descriptions of the following four people to allow them draw them, these are the descriptions I would give:

A "tinker" - eh I'd describe the person's physical apperance as I would for anybody

A child of a single mother - I'd desrcibe the child's apperance

My short mate - "Short, slight build, black hair".

A size 16 woman who is 5ft 6inches tall - "short/medium height, fat, with brown hair etc. etc." I think if I said overweight, the person in the picture would not be big enough, and if I said obese the person drawn would be too big. Of course I could say 'very overweight' in place of 'fat' but I would argue that if you take offence to one of these terms you will take offence to the other aswell but if 'very overweight' is less offensive then I'll stick with that.


----------



## sully (20 Apr 2005)

vvv


			
				MissRibena said:
			
		

> If people are expressing an _opinion _as opposed to stating a _fact_, then "fat" is acceptable. But the question, as I understood it, wasn't asking for an opinion, it asked for an edict on whether a size 16 female was fat, which is not possible.
> Rebecca


 
but there is an edict in the BMI scale and fat analysis, I sincerely doubt any woman that is a size 16of having a BMI less than 25 which means that when height and weigth are taken into account that the person is overweight(or fat). I would gladly take back everything i said if a person that is a sze 16 has a BMI less than 25 and with body fat percentages within a healthy range. 

http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm



Also then at what size does a person become fat/unacceptable, would you say a size 20+ is healthy. or would you let someone that is obese carry on as they are just so as not to cause offence even though their health is severely at risk. I reckon its better to be honest with people and that if someone is at an unhealthy size that they should be told to lose a bit of weight. 

If Big/Fat is truly beautiful, why then do people spend so much time trying to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight, Sure we should all go out and gorge ourselves to make ourselves beautiful. The thing is, that people will keep pushing up the size saying that is the "norm" until someone says no its not normal(shouldn't be normal) to be overweight


----------



## wavejumper (20 Apr 2005)

I don't even know what size 16 looks like...do they fit through a door?  Can someone link to a piccie of a specimen for me to examine?


----------



## Cahir (20 Apr 2005)

The initial question: Is a female size 16 fat?

If I was a size 16 I'd be very fat.
One of my best friend is a size 18 and knows she's so unhealthy because of her weight so she's doing her best to lose it - so yes, she's fat.
My mother is a size 12-14 and thinks she's fat so she's going to weight watchers, I think she's just overweight.

We're all short (or should that be vertically challenged so as not to offend others of my height!).

If we were tall (or vertically enchanced?!?), and size 16, we would probably not be fat.


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

"For instance, I have a male friend who is very short. Does this mean I cannot use the word 'short' to describe his appearance in case he takes offence to this."

If he is offended by it then he finds the remark offensive.  It's up to you whether you decide to continue to use the word or not. If he is not offended, then it is not offensive.  If he finds it offensive and you continue to use it, then it is not possible for you to use it with him in a "non offensive" manner".  As far as I understand, although it's true I could do with consulting a grammar book, this is not debatable; it's simply a fact of syntax.

By the way, I thought the original poster was asking if we had opinions on whether or not her friend was "narrow-minded", which is why I didn't come in on the conversation until quite a while later. So it wasn't quite as clear as you suggest.

If I was asked to describe someone to the police, I know I wouldn't use the word "fat". They never use it on _Crimeline_ or any of those types of programmes. 

Myers and my mother are not quite redherrings, although I admit my mother doesn't actually use "tinkers" but I couldn't resist the temptation of throwing that in .  You said "IMO a term is offensive only if its intent can be reasonably interpreted as offensive" which implies that if the intention is not to offend, then it is fine. My "mother" and Myers both claim no offense is intended.  Interpretation of a word changes when enough people using offensive words listen to the protestations of those that are offended and decide to be come "reasonable" and use less offensive words!

Rebecca

PS  This is great stuff OhPinchy


----------



## sully (20 Apr 2005)

Even clothes manufacturers realise people are getting fatter and accomodate them accordingly, so that a size 16 will probably become the norm but it still is unheaslthy and people are only fooling themselves thinking that size 16 is a helathy weight.


"The standards for women's dress sizes have not remained constant over the years; they have changed as the size and shape of the average woman has changed. (Clothing manufacturers assume most women don't want to wear clothing of a size identified as "Large," for example, so they adjust their sizing so that the average-sized woman takes a "Medium." If the size of the average woman has increased a bit over the years, then the very same size that _was_ a "Large" fifty years ago might be a "Medium" today. This is sort of what has happened to women's dress sizes since the 1940s: a woman who weighs more now than she did twenty years ago might actually be wearing a smaller dress size today." 
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.htm


----------



## smree (20 Apr 2005)

sully said:
			
		

> Lets take a few figures here
> I reckon a size 8 girl at 5'7" would be approx 10and a 1/2 stone a healthy BMI of  23
> so lets just say a half stone(it should be more like 3/4 stone) increase for every dress size which is a fair assumption so that would make a size 16 girl at 5'7" a weight of 12 and a 1/2 stone and an overweight BMI of over 27.




Sorry but you are way off there with your figures. I'm 5'8" and 10 and 1/2 stone with a bmi of 23 but my clothes size would be 12-14 (not sure were you're getting size 8 from). 

People can't just generalise and say that clothes size 16 is fat/overweight and 8 - 10 is right there are too many other factors involved. What height is the person, do they exercise etc... People should be looking at their bmi and not dress size.


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

sully said:
			
		

> but there is an edict in the BMI scale and fat analysis, I sincerely doubt any woman that is a size 16of having a BMI less than 25 which means that when height and weigth are taken into account that the person is overweight(or fat).


 
Would you go away out of that sully! The BMI scale or body fat percentage analysis gives no basis whatsoever to your sincere doubts that a woman of size 16 can have a BMI (body _mass_ index) of over 25. The classifications I've seen for BMI are underweight, within range, overweight, obese, morbidly obese and not thin, ok and fat.

Rebecca


----------



## sully (20 Apr 2005)

yes my calculations were completely wrong there, tyhat should have been 8 and a half stone.

But anyway the thing is a girl that is size 16 and above is fat/overweight/horizontally challenged whatever way you want to put it. 

as i said before if there is a girl out there a size 16 with a BMI of less than 25, then i will stand corrected....


----------



## smree (20 Apr 2005)

Sorry Sully but if you are 5' 7" and 8 and 1/2 stone then your bmi would be 18.6 which is very close to underweight (18.5 and below) which I believe can be just as unhealthy. 

I know if I was to put on a stone in weight my clothes size would move to 14-16 but my bmi would be 24.5 which is still within the normal weight range. So it would be possible for someone to be a size 16 and classified as normal weight based on bmi.


----------



## sully (20 Apr 2005)

smree said:
			
		

> Sorry Sully but if you are 5' 7" and 8 and 1/2 stone then your bmi would be 18.6 which is very close to underweight (18.5 and below) which I believe can be just as unhealthy.
> 
> I know if I was to put on a stone in weight my clothes size would move to 14-16 but my bmi would be 24.5 which is still within the normal weight range. So it would be possible for someone to be a size 16 and classified as normal weight based on bmi.


 
its a misnomer to consider BMI of under 19 to be unhealthy. The only reason why BMI under 18.5 is considered unhealthy is that there is a an awful lot of diseases that causes severe weight loss before death which skews the stats severely and thereby people come out with it being just as unhealthy to have a low BMI ( or whatever they want to say to make themselves feel better about themselves).

An yes i know people can have eating disorders and have a bmi under 19 and i aint advocating this but all i am saying is it is healthier and more beneficial(in most cases) to have as low a BMI as possible to prevent a world of health problems. 

and i ain't convinced that a person can be a size 16 or more and have a healthy BMI.


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

Sully, can you back up any of that with trustworthy _medical_ references?

[Oh my god, I'm turning into rainyday ]


----------



## sully (20 Apr 2005)

MissRibena said:
			
		

> Sully, can you back up any of that with trustworthy _medical_ references?
> 
> [Oh my god, I'm turning into rainyday ]


 
Ok Here you are 

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

http://www.halls.md/bmi/older.htm

A few extracts to back up what i have been saying. Please note i am not trying to cause offence but the truth sometimes hurts people, and i think that its this that causing the offence here.

"This article thinks that a BMI of 30.0 is too high, for defining "obese" in older women over 60 years old. It thinks that a BMI of 25.5 is a better obesity threshold. It defines "true obesity" as having a body fat percentage over 35%. That's a common definition, but it is *arbitrary* nevertheless."


"If your BMI  is between 17 to 22, your life span might be longer than average.  Men are usually satisfied with a BMI of 23 to 25 and women tend to believe they look their best at values between 20 to 22.
If your BMI is between 23 and 25, most people wouldn't consider you to be overweight.  If your BMI  is 26 or more, you are considered overweight and are statistically likely to have a lower life expectancy."


----------



## OhPinchy (20 Apr 2005)

Rebecca - with regards the following:

"My "mother" and Myers both claim no offense is intended. Interpretation of a word changes when enough people using offensive words listen to the protestations of those that are offended and decide to be come "reasonable" and use less offensive words!".....I phrased my view on it very specifically to counter this argument - 99% of the population felt that Myer's use of the B word was intended to be offensive and that he, in his pure arrogance, thought that he could take an intellectual high ground on it to justify its use. Describing a child with a lone parent as a B****** or a member of the travelling community as a "tinker" is reasonably interpreted by 99% of the population as being offensive. I am asked to describe a 5ft 6" woman who is a size 16 and I use the word 'fat' in the descriptive, not derogratory sense, i do not feel it is reasonable to interpret my intent as offensive.

I don't agree with the 'if offence is taken it is offensive' line as there is a fine line between protecting ones feelings and curtailing the freedom of speech so its not as clear-cut as that. There are some words (e.g. the B word above) which are clearly regarded as unacceptable by the majority in society and then there are words, such as ‘fat’ which have a legitimate place when used correctly, and I don’t feel that the PC brigade should be allowed to declare that the use of such words in any circumstance is unacceptable.


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

But sully, who are halls.md? How do we know that they are right? Are you sure you're not just scaremongering rather than helping people face the painful "truth"? According to the _World Health Organisation, _there is evidence that obesity (BMI of 30+) has plenty of negative health effects, full BMI statistics are not yet available for the kind of results you claim. [broken link removed]

Rebecca


----------



## MissRibena (20 Apr 2005)

Oh Pinchy, 99%; where does that come from and how do you know it applies in your listed cases and not in mine? These kinds of things change over time.  The B word and "tinker" were both once acceptable statements of "fact" when presumably 99% of people were happy with them. 

There is no question of curtailing the freedom of speech. Nobody can stop you using words that are offensive to some but they can protest that they find them offensive and thereby exercise their right to freedom of speech.

As an aside, and maybe I'm in a small minority here, is it just not plain bad manners and a sign of great insensitivity to draw attention to someone's physical characteristics unless it's a genuine compliment or for a _Crimeline_ description? 

Rebecca


----------



## Janet (20 Apr 2005)

People seem to certainly have very fixed ideas about something which is really a fairly arbitrary measurement i.e. dress size.  I don't think anyone is disputing that a high BMI is unhealthy.  Stating that anyone who is a size 16 is fat (and therefore unhealthy) is actually a pretty random thought.  I am fat/overweight/obese, choose your term.  I could probably squeeze into a size 16 in Evans (it wouldn't look good, but I'd most likely be able to close a skirt/trousers) but in Pennys need to head for size 24 before I get anything on.  These are the two extremes but I feel they do prove the point that you can't really say such and such a size is a size 16.  I consider myself to be hovering between size 20 and 22 - but still need to take three or four different sizes into a dressing room in any shop to check each time.  Even the difference between the sizes of clothes in the same shop is amazing sometimes.


----------



## bauble (20 Apr 2005)

I wear a size 16 (Dunnes), am 5 foot 3 with a  BMI of 24.6.  It's quite possible to be this size and not apple shaped-my biggest problem is that the waists of skirts/trousers usually need taking in. It is also quite possible to be pear shaped without being flat chested-I definitely am not!

In my younger years I felt I should be thinner and dieted down to a BMI of 21.8. At that stage I could just about have squeezed into a large 12. Unfortunately my torso became so emaciated that my friends and GP were quite worried that I was becoming anorexic. In truth I was probably close to doing so-I still saw myself as 'too big' even though my bones stuck out painfully. It took a long time to accept that I simply have a broad build even though I'm not very tall. Of course I'm not saying that it isn't possible to be overweight and a size 16-however it is a healthy size for me.


----------



## shnaek (20 Apr 2005)

Give it a decade or so of using the term 'overwieght' to describe someone who is rotund and it will become an offensive word too. 
Then what will we do?!


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2005)

I am 6' tall and 14 stone and when last I wore a skirt and top I was a size 14 on the bottom and 16 on top. I thought my bum looked big but some female friends said my legs looked great. Admittedly it was a once off for a Halloween party 3 years ago since I am a man (my wife had mixed feelings about the whole thing, I think she was just jealous)....sorry, I just felt left out.


----------



## Noor77 (30 Apr 2005)

Hmmmmm...after my early involvement, I have managed to miss most of this thread unfortunately.

Sully!!! I am not a complete cynic ...and I happen to think that when my ex said that he liked my 12 top and 14 bottom he meant it! Although it could just have been that I bear more than a passing resemblance to Angelina Jolie and have a good sense of humour. I'm curvy, but toned, and proud of it 

viva la revolucion estectica !!!


----------



## Round Tuit (3 May 2005)

Remember when discussing BMI's that muscle is heavier than fat and therefore you can be deemed to have be obese if your BIM is checked in isolation. Example in the press a while ago now - a man turned down by the British Army as his BM
I indicated he was obese. It was checked on a form - when he appealed and went to the press it became clear that he was a bodybuilder who was not particularly tall!!


----------



## casiopea (3 May 2005)

BMI is only an indicator.   It is wrong to assume that because someone is 18 bmi they are underweight or 27 implies they are overweight.  It is at best only a guideline. 

Two people can have the same BMI, but a different percent body fat.

If you take a 6'3" man weighing 220lbs his BMI is 27.5, he could be a body builder, or he could be simply over weight. 

BMI is not enough to make an informed decision or to determine if someone is "fat" or "skinny".


----------



## Noor77 (6 May 2005)

I can't figure out whether it's the guys or the girls on this thread that are more inclined to think a 16 is too big. It seems like it could be the guys ........


----------



## OhPinchy (6 May 2005)

Noor77 said:
			
		

> I can't figure out whether it's the guys or the girls on this thread that are more inclined to think a 16 is too big. It seems like it could be the guys ........



What is your point here? Are you implying that because it is guys who feel this way the point is less valid? If the question being asked is ‘is a size 16 attractive?’ then surely guys are more qualified to answer the question? After all,the vast majority of women would like to be regarded as attractive by the opposite sex.

This thread shows a mix of guys that like skinny women, average sized women, and larger women. The whole BMI point is a bit of a red herring as there is the valid point that a male rugby player who is pure solid could be regarded as overweight by the BMI. But when you combine % body fat with the BMI reading you get a clearer picture: the rugby player’s body fat would be quite low, but if a person is regarded as overweight by the BMI and also has a high body fat this cannot be explained by having a large frame – this clearly indicates that the person is carrying excess body fat, so choose whatever label for it you please but that’s what it indicates. If a woman is 5’ 6” and is not athletic and has a high % body fat, it is clear that she is carrying excess body fat – I use the term ‘overweight’ or ‘fat’ to describe this depending on the extent of the excess body fat. 

I also think that the ‘larger women are curvy’ thing is a bit of a smokescreen – there are plenty of petit women out there who have all the curves in the right places – take Angelina Jolie or Kylie for example. There are also plenty of women out there who have larger frames and are very curvy and very attractive at that – Beyonce Knowles would be a prime example, but I’d say she might have a higher BMI than say Kylie but her % body fat would still be quite low as she is in great shape. Roseanne Barr might be a good example of a woman who has a high BMI and high % body fat – to me she is not just overweight, so I would refer to her as ‘fat’ (if not ‘obese’), though I suppose I could change this term to ‘very overweight’ but I’m not sure theres much of a difference.

Kate Moss and Calista Flockhart are examples of women that I believe are too skinny – they probably have BMI and % body fat values that are too low. However, eating disorders that actually lead to death are rare, whereas overweight people die from heart attacks etc. much more regularly so I would regard being overweight as being more unhealthy than being underweight. There does seem to be a level of acceptance amongst some women to point out how skinny women such as Teri Hatcher and Calista Flockhart are and say ‘that’s disgusting’ – would those same women be appalled if someone called Roseanne Barr ‘disgusting’? 

Each to their own, but IMO a woman is at her most attractive when she is well toned, regardless of the size of her frame and that is the general consensus amongst all the guys I know. That is not in any way aimed at putting down any women that don’t match that description, its just what I believe is a fair reflection of what I believe would be the preference of most lads out there.


----------



## Noor77 (6 May 2005)

OhPinchy said:
			
		

> If the question being asked is ‘is a size 16 attractive?’ then surely guys are more qualified to answer the question?
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## michaelm (6 May 2005)

Noor77: You're not going to get yourself a husband unless you buck up your ideas.


----------



## Noor77 (6 May 2005)

Hmmmmm MichaelM ...thanks for the offer but you may not be my type 

Lucky I am not in the market for a husband !!!


----------



## Gabriel (6 May 2005)

What about just an old fashioned affair then Noor? 

Is this not a singles board?...oh sh*t!!!


----------



## OhPinchy (6 May 2005)

If the question being asked is ‘is a size 16 attractive?’ then surely guys are more qualified to answer the question? After all,the vast majority of women would like to be regarded as attractive by the opposite sex.

Eh, how on earth can this be sexist? You delibarately avoided including the third sentence which qualifies the second.

The point is that while members of a particular sex may be a good judge of whether other members of that same sex are stereotypically good-looking, I firmly believe that they are not the best judge of whether or not a member of their own sex is attractive. And there is a difference - I can acknowledge that a particular woman is good-looking while not being attracted to her, while another man might be attracted to that same woman. I don't believe that a straight woman would be well positioned to say whether that same woman is attractive as a prerequisite of finding someone attractive, as opposed to good-looking, is being attracted to members of that person's sex. I specifically quantified my opinion above with 'vast majority of women' so as to cater for homosexual women - they are attracted to females and so would be a good judge as to whether fellow females are attractive.

As a straight male I am able to identify other men that may be typically good-looking but I would be a poor judge as to whether or not they are 'attractive'. So whether or not you agree with this outlook I clearly think it applies to both males and females equally so it is clearly not sexist.

Noor77 - looking back over your posts on this thread leads me to believe that you have been more concerned with reassuring yourself about your size 14 and 12 top or whatever it is than having a mature debate on this subject. The continued personalization of the issue and failure to debate it on a theoretical level lead me to the conclusion that "he who doth protest too much...".

You repeatedly poured scorn on any male view that indicated a preference for well toned women without actually countering their argument but rather attacking the person (your quotes include "must be a male of the species I suppose" and "I'd hate to be your girlfriend") - what makes these opinions any less valuable than yours?  

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are plenty of guys out there who would find a women with your figure attractive which is great. I, however, am not one of them and I reckon that the vast majority of beholders out there prefer a woman who is well toned and well proportioned - how else do you explain the fact that year after year the FHM Top 100 Sexiest Women and all such polls are almost entirely populated by the likes of Angelina Jolie, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Anna Kournikova - all fine specimens of the female form who have very little body fat but I would not call 'skinny' (which to me denotes being unhealthily underweight in the same way that 'fat' denotes someone who is unhealthily overweight)? And don't go harping on about sexism again cos I'm pretty sure that all the Top 100 Men polls don't include too many tubby guys - Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon , Tom Cruise - all them lads wouldn't have a pick on them.


----------



## Noor77 (11 May 2005)

Oh Pinchy - you are more than entitled to your opinions, but I am also entitled to disagree with you, which I do. 
Re: myself. I am more than happy with the way I look and I really couldn't care less what other people think. There are far more important things in the world, and in my life


----------



## pricilla (30 May 2005)

Yeah well nobody has a problem making comments to smokers about fags being unhealthy, but tell someone overweight that they're damaging their health by being heavy and all hell would break loose!
I think it's so close to the bone, that even the most thick skinned person would be upset by being called fat.
I would *hate* to be overweight, I pray that it never happens to me because I'd be absolutely miserable and depressed. 
To be honest, the fear of getting fat made me continue to smoke for years. Thank God I've given them up now and am only a small bit heavier.


----------



## Marie (30 May 2005)

I find this thread quite disturbing!  _Of course_ being anorexic or severely underweight is as dangerous as being seriously obese and overweight.  I have worked as a psychotherapist with a number of people (women _and_ men!) who have tragically died through starvation and effects of severe low body-weight.   Unfortunately the 'cultural icons' of waif-like child-like androgenous women (Calista Flockhart a case in point!) are promoted _in conjunction with_ and as contrast to luxury items such as expensive cars and lifestyles (platinum credit-cards) and 'sold' as an image as surely as the luxury-goods.  Men appear to feel less insecure when women are needy and threatened by the Rosanne Barr's and Dawn French's who are _not_ starving, _not_ dependent, are lippy, independent, aggressive, witty and sexual!

At one stage in my life when I was carrying an extra stone (understandable; a year after a very messy long-term relationship-breakup) I met up through a dating-service with someone who sounded in our dozen or so long enjoyable telephone conversations like a 'soul mate'.

After three weeks learning a great deal about each other and developing mutual feelings of deep compatibility we eagerly met up.  He looked me up and down, looked disgusted and disappointed and said 'I don't think this is going to work out!  I expected someone slimmer.  I'm not interested'.  So much for 'soul mate'!  Check-mate at the start of play, more like.   Painful stuff.  We walked along the river as planned, ate lunch at a pub as planned.  I never contacted him again.

The man portrayed himself as a 'fit, attractive, highly-intelligent and sensitive General Practitioner'.  I found a short man with tired, blood-shot eyes, much-receeded greying hair, _a big beer-gut_ - the origin of which I discovered in his prodigious beer-consumption when we lunched and who conversationally was a great deal less intelligent  and less educated in the broadest sense of the word - than myself.  Fit?  I doubt it.  'Sensitive'?  Judge for yourself!  Opinionated and seduced by media images?  You bet!

Would I have still given the relationship a go has it not been for his response to my 'fatness' at the time?  Yes.  I'm a realist, not a fantasist.  

So gentlemen perhaps we women are just that bit more reluctant than men to firstly, 'judge the book by its cover' and secondly, hurt another's feelings by misplaced bluntness about their deviation from some extraordinarily-contrived air-brushed fantasy.

Weight is one of the most ephemeral characteristics of any person, the most dependent on external factors but unfortunately the emphasis of this culture on control and manifestations of deprivation (as counterpoint to the conspicuous consumption the so-called developed world indulges) is a source of great anxiety to many youngsters and teens, and destroys the lives of a vast number of women.


----------



## ClubMan (30 May 2005)

Sorry _Marie _- but I have to say that your post is full of sweeping generalisations that simply don't stand up. For example to pick a single (skinny) female celebrity while ignoring those who are of a fuller figure and to draw conclusions from this single example does not make much sense. Similarly, to extrapolate from a single negative incident with a man to how most or all "gentlemen" treat others in this context is also pretty trite. I don't disagree that sales/marketing is often driven by sex and preconceptions of ideal body images (which further reinforce these preconceptions) and that many people unnecessarily have hangups and preoccupations (often betraying or leading to other serious psychological issues) about body image but I don't think that making sweeping generalisations as you seem to be doing contributes to a meaningful discussion of the issues.


----------



## OhPinchy (31 May 2005)

Hi Marie-

Much as I am sorry to hear of the horrible way in which that d*ck treated you, I'm afraid your post just compounds the point I made above in that most of the women posting in this thread based their arguments on their personal experiences and/or weight which IMO has led to emotive rather than substantive arguments being put forward. I actually find you stating that you found the opinions expressed in this thread which were opposed to your opinion (I'm assuming the opinions you agree with don't disturb you) disturbing and then failing to make a reasonable argument to back up this view quite disturbing.

Read the posts in the rest of this thread and you will see others like me pointing out that being underweight is dangerous for your health, though any reasonable observation would conclude that people actually dying from eating disorders (especially in Ireland) does happen but is extremely rare. People die from the effects of being fat all the time (note again I draw a distinction here as I don't think people die from being 'overweight' - it is when they go beyond overweight and become fat or obese that they are in real danger). Didn't we just have a survey a couple of weeks ago that said some crazy percentage of Irish people (something like 20-30% I think) are obese? Please don't tell me that the percentage of people who are seriously underweight is any more than a slight fraction of this.

The guy you refer to sounds like a pretty disgusting person in the way that he treated you but can I ask if his opinion would have mattered more to you if he had been the fit adonis he made out to be?

Your point that men really only want needy women cos they cant handle women like Roseann Barr and Dawn French is frankly laughable - I don't know a single guy who would find these women physically attractive and thats not due to every guy I know being intimidated - it is simply because most men do not find women who are that fat attractive. A man is entitled to this opinion and just because a few men (like the one you came across) are so insensitive about expressing that opinion does not mean that it is an illegitimate opinion.

And please don't patronise the entire male race by making out like we are only attracted to leaner women due to the impact of the media machine and that deep down we would really all be attracted to independent, agressive (wow - do you really view that as a positive attribute?), witty, sexual (fair enough they may be sexual in themselves but IMO definitely not sexy in most males' eyes) women like Roseanne Barr and Dawn French. That is such a lazy and disillusional argument.

Thankfully the world is full of all sorts and there are plenty of guys out there who like fat women and plenty of women who like fat guys, which is great - all I am saying is in reality the majority of men are not physically attracted to fat women. I would also point out that I don't know many men who are attracted to overly skinny women like Calista Flockhart or Kate Moss. But look at the women who are consistently at the top of any polls asking men for their opinion on the sexiest women: Kylie, Angelina Jolie, Britney etc. – all beautiful, toned women without a pick of fat on them but I think it would be wrong to compare these women to Kate Moss et al. A lot of men also like fuller bodied women like Beyonce, Mariah Carey etc. but these women have larger frames but are still very toned – a lot of women try to make out that the fuller, voluptuous  woman is more beautiful – I’m sure some guys would agree but they would probably have the likes of Beyonce and not Roseanne in mind!


----------



## casiopea (31 May 2005)

OhPinchy said:
			
		

> A lot of men also like fuller bodied women like Beyonce, Mariah Carey



OK, I know you were making a comparison to Calista and Kate but just to clear here - Beyonce and Mariah Carey are not fuller bodied!  They both have gorgeous bodies, lean and would fit into size 10 clothing.  They also have a ridiculous amount of money spent on making them look like that. 



			
				OhPinchy said:
			
		

> If the question being asked is ‘is a size 16 attractive?’ then surely guys are more qualified to answer the question?



I dont find that statement sexist but I really dont think one is particularly more qualified than the other.  I do find that men are far too critical of womens looks.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2005)

> I do find that men are far too critical of womens looks.


That's because men look at them in a sexual context, not in the context of wanting to be their friends. It's hard to buck 100'000 years of evolution. Men are designed to look at women as brood mares, that's why wide hips, a thin waste and big breasts are desirable. They are signs that the woman will be able to have children.
In the same way women are attracted to men with money because they can be seen as the alpha male and so would be a good provider.
We are not slaves to these vestiges of our genetic history but they certainly influence us on a subconscious and instinctive level and it is stupid to ignore them when we look at how the sexes view each other.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Jun 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> a thin waste



I've never examined a prospective mate's stools myself.


----------



## MissRibena (1 Jun 2005)

There is plenty of debate as to where the idea of beauty comes from.  There is also scientific question marks over how much of what we perceive as beautiful comes from evolution as suggested by Purple and how much is perpetuated by social conditioning. 

Clearly it is not as static and "hard to buck" as Purple claims because what men have found beautiful in women has changed many times and differs from culture to culture.  The main reason there is so much concurrence now is because of the amalgamation of most cultures into one media-led uberculture. 

There are tons of examples where buxom, tanned women were not the norm.  A couple that spring to mind are; In Renaissance times, heavier figures were preferred and the wasp/hourglass shape was not common. In 15th cent. Holland it was common to pad their tummies as a fashion statement.  Severe corsets worn from an early age in Victorian times distorted women's organs and therefore couldn't possibly be mimicing "what nature intended".   Preferences for tans are relatively recent - for centuries women applied white powder to show they didn't have to work outside.  Equally the idea of a toned body on a woman was a sign that she had to do manual work, which was seen as unattractive up until the 20th century.   Everyone wanted a small bum when I was a teenager - now they want implants! Unfortunately, the one thing that hasn't changed over time is women's willingness to put up with all sorts of crap to appear attractive to whatever fashion men favour this century.

So sorry purple but the caveman theory just doesn't add up here. 

Rebecca


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2005)

Hi Rebecca,

The reason that heavier women were preferred in renaissance times, white skin was attractive for most of the last 400 years and padding was used in 15th century Holland is that (as you pointed out) they were all associated with wealth, or to be more precise, were associated with women who didn't work in the fields. It could be argued that this had a lot more to do with social conditioning than the modern trend of finding an athletic body attractive. You must also recognise that not too many thin women could pay the commission for a top renaissance artist to paint them into their latest work. The historical legacy of what was regarded as attractive of desirable hundreds of years ago is confined to the aristocracy and super rich of the day.  What the masses thought was not of concern to the literate or landed and so has not survived in the historical record. 
You said that  “the one thing that hasn't changed over time is women's willingness to put up with all sorts of crap to appear attractive to whatever fashion men favour this century.” If this has little or nothing to do with instinct then why has it remained constant through all the cultural changes of the last 500 years in general and the last 80 years of emancipation in particular?


----------



## MissRibena (1 Jun 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> If this has little or nothing to do with instinct then why has it remained constant through all the cultural changes of the last 500 years in general and the last 80 years of emancipation in particular?


 
I wish I knew the answer to that. I've posted before on my views of women's less-than-full embrace of emancipation and don't want to hijack this thread. The fact that despite everything women continue to pander to men's taste is a source of disappointment, frustration and some shame to me. All I can say that 80 years of emancipation is a relatively short period of time given how long women were not free, so I hope that in the fullness of time (long after my passing) that things will change. Obviously I don't believe it is instinct and do believe it is changeable. 

Nude female forms used in paintings in the Rennaissance period were generally modelled on prostitutes and are not how women of the age would have seen themselves. So while images at the time were rare, they were nonetheless painted generally by men and since most were of women in the "sex trade" it's fair to say that these were depictions of what men found attractive at the time. Most art was for religious purposes and displayed as altarpieces in churches where the public would have had access to them. 

Portraits of known/named women are quite rare, even fully clothed. Indeed the portrait only began to soar in popularity during this time due to a combination of the rise of the merchant classes through trade and humanism's influence which helped temper the Church's hitherto stronghold on the best art. Portraits were not generally seen by the public.

Not all the conventions I mentioned were related to wealth; they also relate to health. "Beauty" is often portrayed as the antithesis of whatever ills society is suffering from at the time (famine/plague/alcoholism etc.) So rather than taking the wealth line of argument, you could argue that men will find traits attractive in a woman that indicate that she is most likely to produce healthy children. It is true, however, that wealth and health are often instricably linked. Unfortunately, this is something that hasn't changed much through time.

You imply that men were guided by their social conditioning in previous times but now are more influenced by their genetic instincts. In earlier times perhaps you could say that since images were rare, individual works of art had a bigger impact than they do now. But I don't buy that this impact was greater than the impact of constant barrage of images (particularly of women, more particularly nude/semi-nude and provocative) that is such a dominant part of our own culture today. The question really is, I suppose, do men like what they see or see what they like? 

Rebecca


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2005)

We are now off topic so maybe a kind moderator could move this to a new thread but this shouldn't be confined to how men view women. The present age of mass media has set the bar pretty high for men's appearance as well. There are plenty of pictures of teen band members with six-pack stomachs and lean bodies on the bedroom walls of teenaged girls (and older).
When you look at how much our behaviour has in common with other higher mammals it seems absurd to me to ignore the genetic and therefore subconscious and instinctive link.
As for your last point, I wasn't implying anything I was just suggesting that it is possible.
I was also suggesting that since we have no real idea what was regarded as the ideal by the masses hundreds of years ago, as the historical record is confined to one very narrow group, it is not a good idea to construct a sociological argument around the images that we do have.


> Portraits of known/named women are quite rare, even fully clothed. Indeed the portrait only began to soar in popularity during this time due to a combination of the rise of the merchant classes through trade and humanism's influence which helped temper the Church's hitherto stronghold on the best art. Portraits were not generally seen by the public.


I wasn't talking about portraits; I was talking about the practice of paying an artist to put your wives, daughters of mothers face on the Virgin Mary or whomever in their latest Church commissioned painting.


> I've never examined a prospective mate's stools myself.


 Thanks for the info there Clubman. That was a typo by the way.


----------



## MissRibena (1 Jun 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> When you look at how much our behaviour has in common with other higher mammals it seems absurd to me to ignore the genetic and therefore subconscious and instinctive link.
> 
> I was also suggesting that since we have no real idea what was regarded as the ideal by the masses hundreds of years ago, as the historical record is confined to one very narrow group, it is not a good idea to construct a sociological argument around the images that we do have.
> 
> ...


 
(I don't know how to tackle your quotes bit by bit, so I have to do it paragraph at a time - sorry)

Re the first point. I'm not saying ignore it but because it is unproven how much is from our genes and how much is cultural then we have to be careful.  I believe it is dangerous to give genes too much credit for how we are - it restricts us from pushing bounderies and progressing. 

Why would wealthy men fancy different-looking women to the masses at any time in history? Fair enough, the wealthy man might have more of a chance of getting the woman of his dreams into bed but that doesn't stop the poor man dreaming of her.

I don't think that men paid for their female relatives faces to be tranposed on religious paintings in the Rennaissance.  Have you something in particular in mind?  Allegorical paintings were more common in later centuries but still not the norm, especially for women.  And even then, works in the history painting genre (incl. religious art works) tended to follow the prescribed classical "ideal" beauty; a generic type of beauty based on proportion etc. not generally to be found in nature at all but rather based on sculpture surviving from ancient Greece and Rome and also based on writings by the likes of Vitruvius.  

Rebecca


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2005)

Ok, now I'm in way over my head. I can't back up my arguments with reports or examples (nothing new there), just call it a gut feeling.


----------



## MissRibena (1 Jun 2005)

Fair enough Purple, but for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the kind of artwork you mention simply didn't happen as a matter of course at that time.  Men, artists in particular, did paint themselves into some paintings but this was a novelty aside, rather than the main purpose of the artwork and are known as Bystander Portraits; Raphael's School of Athens is an example.  I can't think of any religious paintings where named people's faces were painted in as subsitutes Christs/Saints/Virgins.  I think it might even have been sacreligious although I think Rubens (somewhat later) for one was fond of himself in this regard.  I know that certain religious poses were popular for portraits, for instance, Albrecht Durer (leader of the so-called Northern Rennaissance) painted himself in a pose which we would recognise from Sacred Heart pictures but would have been intended to relfect his faith and gratitude for his talents, rather than any arrogance or Christ-complexes.

Before the allegorical portraits popular in England in the 18th Century, the only instances I can think of where women appeared in similar circumstances were in self portraits of the very few women artists that existed (or we know about), for example Artemisia Gentileschi painted herself as an allegory of "Painting" (the arts were often personified).  She's a fascinating figure, btw, for anyone mildly interested in art or women's issues.

Rebecca


----------



## OhPinchy (1 Jun 2005)

Wow - well eh this thread has been taken on a pretty spectacular tangent hasn't it? The 'where did our perception of beauty come from?' stuff is all very interesting but has very little to do with the rest of the thread IMO.

Casiopaea - Beyonce is 'fuller-bodied' than someone like Kylie, as is J-Lo. I know lots of lads that would say they are into fuller-bodied women and by this they mean the likes of Beyonce and J-Lo - both toned women but have bigger frames than Kylie, Angelina etc. I don't know many guys who would have the likes of Vanessa Feltz in mind when they say they like fuller-bodied women. 

Most women would like to be regarded as attractive by members of the opposite sex for the simple reasons that the more people that are attracted to you the easier it is to find someone for which the feeling is mutual. And for those who have already found that someone, the ego boost of being regarded as attractive can't hurt! 

So if a woman would like to be regarded as attractive by men and she asks the question 'am I attractive?' I think the answers that men give in this case are more relevant than the answers given by women. Fellow women can answer 'well I think you are pretty' but only men and lesbians would be in a position to say 'I find you attractive (i.e. you physically turn me on)'. 

If you reverse the roles above so that it is a man asking 'am I attractive' I think the same rule applies - the answers given by women and gay men would be more relevant than those given by straight men.


----------



## casiopea (1 Jun 2005)

Hi OhPinchy,
Between you and me we'll bring this thread back on track 



			
				OhPinchy said:
			
		

> Beyonce is 'fuller-bodied' .....I don't know many guys who would have the likes of Vanessa Feltz



I just feel your examples are so extreme.  Just because I disagree that beyonce is "fuller bodied" does not mean that  Im trying to be PC with the term fuller bodied. V Feltz is not fuller bodied either....she is overweight/fat whatever term suits you best.  The point I was trying make earlier is that Mariah and Beyonce are not fuller bodied at all, yes Beyonces and JLos butts are more bigger than kylies and tara PT that does not make them "fuller bodied" (kylie, kate moss and tara are extremes).  They (B, M, JLo) still have amazing lean bodies and most importantly reiterating what I said earlier, have had an enormous amount money spent on them.  In the case of Mariah plastic surgery.  These are not realistic bodies for women like me to hold as my "ideal target body" (and that was how this thread was started - is a certain female size ideal/not ideal).  I do agree with Purple and his point about sexual context.



			
				OhPinchy said:
			
		

> Fellow women can answer 'well I think you are pretty' but only men and lesbians would be in a position to say 'I find you attractive (i.e. you physically turn me on)'



Thats actually wrong.  Women can find other women attractive and therefore can comment effectively on what is deemed sexually attractive. We are more open that way.  It doesnt mean we are bi or gay.   Women will quite frequently comment on breasts being pert, not big enough, needing work done.  Same with bums, eyes, lips...its not just in a pretty context but also in a whats sexually alluring.  For example I would not say Angelina jolie has pretty lips, I would say they are sexy lips.  I think most women and men would agree with me.



			
				OhPinchy said:
			
		

> If you reverse the roles above so that it is a man asking 'am I attractive' I think the same rule applies - the answers given by women and gay men would be more relevant than those given by straight men.



I cant comment on the reverse but I think most people would agree that straight women are more comfortable commenting about other straight women in an attractiveness context.  Hence the steorotypical gay man/straight women bestfriends dynamic.


----------



## MissRibena (2 Jun 2005)

OhPinchy said:
			
		

> The 'where did our perception of beauty come from?' stuff is all very interesting but has very little to do with the rest of the thread IMO.
> QUOTE]
> 
> In fairness, purple did request that the threads be split earlier on.
> ...


----------

