Is a female size 16 fat?

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".
 
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 ........
 
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 ........
Click to expand...

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


Ooooooooooooooooh........that has to be the most s*xist statement I have heard in a long, long time :(

I couldn't care less what guys think I look like, or women for that matter! As far as I am concerned the guy is just lucky to get a kiss from me in the first place!!! ;)
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmmm MichaelM ...thanks for the offer but you may not be my type ;)

Lucky I am not in the market for a husband !!!
 
What about just an old fashioned affair then Noor? ;)

Is this not a singles board?...oh sh*t!!!
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
OhPinchy said:
A lot of men also like fuller bodied women like Beyonce, Mariah Carey
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I do find that men are far too critical of womens looks.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info there Clubman. That was a typo by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top