Blogs and Stories
Absolutely Flabulous
Lizzi Miller’s belly roll in Glamour caused a sensation. Marisa Meltzer on why the 180-pound beauty is leading a plus-size revolution. Also, VIEW OUR GALLERY of hot and heavy models.
Perhaps you’ve seen it, the small photo on page 194 of the September issue of Glamour. The picture illustrates a story called “What Everyone But You Sees About Your Body” (sample advice: “When you focus on the body parts you love, your ‘flaws’ fade away.”), and in it, a gorgeous blonde sits smiling in her underwear. Sounds innocuous enough? The model has no abs of steel; in fact, she has a bit of fat on her stomach.
Click Below to View Our Gallery of Hot & Heavy Models
And with this, the belly roll heard round the world, Glamour’s September issue has now become more blabbed about within the fashion world than even The September Issue.
The magazine was inundated with feedback from readers who say they love the "woman on p. 194," Glamour Editor in Chief Cindi Leive reported in a blog post. She quotes a reader in Georgia who calls it "the most amazing photograph I've ever seen in any women's magazine." Another fan in Massachusetts writes, "This beautiful woman has a real stomach and did I even see a few stretch marks? This is how my belly looks after giving birth to my two amazing kids! This photo made me want to shout from the rooftops."
The woman is question is 20-year-old Lizzi Miller, plus-size model and belly-dance enthusiast who wears a size 12-14. At 5'11 and 180 pounds, her body mass index puts her just outside of what insurers deem “normal,” but well under the female average of 26.5 in the U.S. "In America, the ideal body for women is increasingly longer and leaner than seem humanly possible," Julia Savacool in the new book, The World Has Curves: The Global Quest for the Perfect Body. "Never before has the 'perfect' body been at such odds with our true size."
"When I was young, I really struggled with my body and how it looked because I didn't understand why my friends were so effortlessly skinny," Miller told Glamour. "I've been that girl, flipping through magazines trying to find just one person who looked a little bit like me. And when I didn't find it, I would start to think there's something wrong with the way that I looked.”
In one of nearly a thousand replies to Leive’s entry, commenter chrissyrox wrote, “I’ve read Glamour for 15 years and you’ve always shown us diversity—though not enough. There’s still this addiction to thin, thin, thin in the media, which has us all addicted. It’s time for a Revolution all y’all! Down with size 2, up with size YOU! “
Nearly every blog aimed at women commented on it, plus Newsweek and CNN. Even the popular street fashion site The Sartorialist weighed in, wondering whether the economic crisis has “forced the fashion community to open its eyes a little bit to what the customers want?”
The answer appears to be a tentative yes. When Leive and Miller appeared on the Today show on August 24, the editor, whose persona has always been something of the antithesis to the Devil Wears Prada archetype, said to Matt Lauer of the photo’s popularity, “Will it change our approach? I think it will.”
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Moving In With Mom, Dad and God
Marisa Meltzer is coauthor of How Sassy Changed My Life. Her next book Girl Power will be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in February.
An Ode to Shaggy Men
Marisa Meltzer is coauthor of How Sassy Changed My Life. Her next book Girl Power will be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in February.
Good Girls Are Back
Marisa Meltzer is coauthor of How Sassy Changed My Life. Her next book Girl Power will be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in February.
Nice job with the article.
Mags should love the average sized people. They are selling consumerism, end of story. They want people to overindulge in everything so why would they stop at food? The paradox has always confused me. The only think I can think of is that the fashion people want flatsy models for pics, but why they cannot cardboard cutouts in pics or roll them down the cat walk is also curious? In another article on the DB someone wrote in that it is much harder to make a dress that fits a curvy person than a flat person, so perhaps it is just that they are incredibly lazy??
I recently saw a friend's episode and frankly, viewing J. Aniston from the back, she looked like a 12 year old boy. Nothing attractive about that unless one is a 12 year old girl:)!
They've got to do something to sell magazines... who buys those things anymore? Full of a bunch of pictures which make women feel bad about themselves. It's about time they realized who their customers are.
Seriously, Embers, you are so right. I have completely shifted from them many years ago. Now I read The Nation and Good Housekeeping and the DB online! Go figure---
Its called "aspiration". Most people do (and should) want to better themselves which is a healthy impulse. There is nothing more destructive to the body and mind then complacency.
Also no amount of pretending that fat is more attractive (particularly to men) then skinny makes it true. Women with a vested interest in fat pride (IE fat women) can say things like "skinny women don't have enough curves for real men" but 9 times out of 10, when they can, guys go for skinny attractive women instead of the plus sized set. I have yet to see the bumper sticker that says "no thin chicks". When Megan Fox like thin women are replaced in the popular culture by a younger Roseanne type as the beauty ideal guys will go out of their way to worship feel free to make the "fat women look better" argument with some credibility. I won't read your argument that day however, I'll be too busy skiing in hell.
Politico. These are magazines selling things. It is all about consumerism. Most people are not size 2, think you must agree on at least this point? We are talking about representing a normal sized person, neither huge nor tiny. What is wrong with that? Yes, one should take care, get exercise and balance, but for most people to get to the size of a model (inlcuding a lot of models), we are talking about pretty risky eating, rather non-eating behavior.
A real human being.Thank god. She may save a few girls from anorexia and bulimia.Life is just bettter when you eat. The brain works better, the sex is better.Mental health is better. Starvation is not a good thing.
Only 0.3% of the population has anorexia.
That's ZERO point THREE percentage.
The largest weight problem affecting the health
of young girls is obesity, not anorexia.
There is a lot of ROOM between obesity and anorexia,
it's called NORMAL weight for your height and bone structure.
I'm tired of people pretending like there are only TWO body types
that women are allowed to have: obese or anorexic!
The woman in the picture has loose skin because
she lacks muscle mass. It's what happens when you
diet without lifting weights and getting enough protein.
Excellent post, crymeariver. Facts and reality instead of propaganda. Anorexia is a serious, and rare, condition, probably with a biological link as to causation. No respectable scientist would claim it is "caused" by images of women in the media. Nor would any respectable scientist say that more images of so-called normal women would "save" anyone from anorexia. That's radical feminist agitprop, not science.
@crymeanexpert: Nope. Where your fat goes not about how disciplined you are. It is genetic. Your fat doesn't go to your belly not thanks to diet and exercise, but because it probably goes to your butt and thighs when you gain weight.
I've always had a low bulge under my navel, always will, including when I was at this model's age at 5' 6", 120 pounds, very physically active. People would congratulate me on my non-existent pregnancy when I wore spandex (it was the 80s, naturally). I still have a killer figure considering, still the same size (although heavier, that's another article) and getting close to 50 -- bulge still there. :)
I've got a sister who has been overweight her whole life and has a perfectly flat gorgeous tummy, even after her kids.
Also I don't think the overweight sister eats more than I do.
Not fair but there it is: genetics.
Veronicaxy: Nope. Where your fat goes not about how disciplined you are. It is genetic
-----------------------
Veronica,
can you please provide a reference to a RESPECTED scientific journal that says belly fat is due to genetics?
You might "exercise" but I bet you don't lift weights or get enough protein. Most women spend most of their time doing aerobic exercise which doesn't build muscle mass.
Hang around a high school pal. Bulimia is a huge problem. Maybe anorexia is less.....but, still a problem. More deadly.
kscr14: Hang around a high school pal. Bulimia is a huge problem. Maybe anorexia is less.....but, still a problem. More deadly.
----------------------------
The prevalence of Bulimia around 1.5% of the U.S. population.
Just because you see a lot of people doing something at one
location does not mean it's a "huge" problem. People need to
stick to facts and learn about math and statistics.
@crymeflamingignorant: "show me a credible source" -- yet without offering one? The web is full of explanations about why fat is distributed (as a woman why i don't have a v-shaped torso is a good start and a beer belly style of fat) so find your favorite source. Your own real live doc or other is best. My husband is a nurse practitioner whose specialty is psychiatry treating with medication, hormones and nutrition. Curious why you believe yourself such the expert? This whole issue sounds like a major hot button for you - more emotional heat than light. Certainly shoots before aiming, assuming rather than asking.
Veronicaxy
@crymeflamingignorant: "show me a credible source" -- yet without offering one? The web is full of explanations about why fat is distributed (as a woman why i don't have a v-shaped torso is a good start and a beer belly style of fat) so find your favorite source.
-------------------
Veronica,
1) Below are links for you explaining the prevalence of the various eating disorders (in ranges). If you want to look up scientific research, use the following datatbase provided by NIH: PUBMED.
To look up information about eating disorders, look in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV)
http://www.aedweb.org/eating_disorders/prevalence.cfm
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2006/college-women-at-risk-for-eati ng-disorder-may-benefit-from-online-intervention.shtml
http://www.aafp.org/afp/980600ap/mcgilley.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/b/bulimia_nervosa/book-diseases-7a.htm
2) Your husband is a nurse practitioner he is not a doctor, his level of information is limited. He deals at the micro level, and might miss the
bigger picture.
3) Fat distribution based on gender is not the same thing as saying
being fat is genetic. Two women can stand next to each other and
contain different amounts of fat on their hips, stomach and chests.
Being a woman doesn't mean you will have a fat belly otherwise ALL
women would have fat bellies.
@Crying: *something* is making you irrational about all of this.
I didn't ask for sources on eating disorders, we're talking about how weight is distributed so those would be the sources to show here. And while nurse practitioners don't have as much training as MDs they get enough to act as GPs in much of the country and it sure doesn't take med school to know about this, heck even I do. Good magazines like Self also cover this repeatedly. But *seriously* go to a doctor, a trained nutritionist or whatever health care provider you trust. I am actually worried about your fanaticism, this isn't abstract r/l politics, this is your health. Somethings up.
"Contrary to what the infomercials suggest there is no such thing as spot reduction. Fat is lost throughout the body in a pattern dependent upon genetics, sex (hormones), and age. Overall body fat must be reduced to lose fat in any particular area. Although fat is lost or gained throughout the body it seems the first area to get fat, or the last area to become lean, is the midsection (in men and some women, especially after menopause) and hips and thighs (in women and few men). Sit-ups, crunches, leg-hip raises, leg raises, hip adduction, hip abduction, etc. will only exercise the muscles under the fat."
James Griffing, MS, BS
* MS Kinesiology (KSU)
* BS Exercise Science (KSU)
* 1990 NPC Kansas Bodybuilding Champion
@crymeabloodyidiot:
I agree with everything veronica has to say. I have the same experience with my age, athleticism (weight bearing and aerobic), impeccable diet, and belly, with an overweight sister who carried twins and still has a naturally flat abdomen. I have more my mother's build, and she bore seven children. Thin hips, shapely legs, while my sis has 'saddlebag' fat and overall fatty legs.
What do you understand about the relationship of estrogen/progesterone to fat, and fat to estrogen/progesterone? Each woman has her own balance of estrogens and progestens, along with androgens. One combo does not fit all.
Give me a good nurse practitioner over a good doc any day. They are among the finest of health-care providers; they are experts in their fields; and they care for people as whole persons. Also, they have to endure attitudes like yours.
On this topic, you are clearly contemptuous and arrogant. Unlike veronica, I see you have a serious problem, but I don't care. I do wonder about the amount of fat distribution in your head, though.
Ladies, that belly flab is okay with you?
How's your belly?
What belly. I have a muscular abdomen and who cares.
The young lady in the photo is only 20 y.o. and should be trim and flat at the stomach. Her current lack of shape will spell health problems in the future.
Okay, then. Just wondering. Good work.
Most women have that belly in a sitting position.After children, for some women even weights cannot help.You can disagree, but women would agree. Some are blessed to have good genetics.They are the ones that would not agree! All this judgement is what causes Bulimia. Words,attitudes and alittle insecurity and teens stop eating. So being so harsh isn't the best advice.
The model is bent and twisted so there is going to be a little protrusion. And, yes, that "belly flab" is okay with me. It is positively adorable.
Great article! It was fun and refreashing to read. The comment Margaret Hartmann wrote on Jezebel really summed up my views. It would be great if ths lasted longer than 1 magazine.
She just needs one of those exercise DVDs to get rid of that flab or she can join the Biggest Loser on NBC's show. I could have sworn you could get rid of flab with some strength training. Apprently, she doesn't have time to go to a gym or buy a DVD. But the photo does show the human form . . . silly putty!
Exercise alone won't get rid of that tummy, she will also have to change her diet and some people just collect fat in certain spots no matter how much they exercise or diet. We should be advocating fitness and real healthy attainable shapes, not the flat teenage boy bodies that are currently in magazines.
It's not fat, it's loose skin. You get it from dieting without having enough protein in your diet and lifting weights to create muscle mass.
not a flattering photo at all.
she's pretty, they could of given her a better pose.
the implication is that the whole point of this photo is as a publicity stunt for the magazine. does not reflect a change, just good pr
Actually, the photo is pretty much buried in the magazine. It was not posed, but a candid shot in-between posed ones. The magazine didn't promote it. Readers discovered it.
Save a few girls from anorexia? Like it's so widespread? Have you seen these fat-assed kids today? I have two nieces that tip the scales at 300 lbs each!!! Anorexia?
Anorexia is not widespread. It is a very rare condition. The myth that anorexia is widespread, and is somehow caused by images of women in the media, was created in the 1980s by radical feminist propagandists (see, for example, Naomi Wolf's discredited The Beauty Myth). The propaganda was extremely effective however, and it's egregious distortions have become part of the conventional wisdom. Just check out any Women's Center on any college campus today.
As the auntie of a 14-year-old anorexic niece who had to be home-schooled for a year because she was too sick to attend, and as the sister of a woman who was a practising bulimic throughout high school (she's not the mother of my anorexic niece), I'm here to say that the causes are complex. Unrealistic, shallow images of women in mags and such aren't the cause. However, constant exposure to them does nothing for anyone's self-acceptance and good mental health. That's nothing to sneeze at.
She looks good in that black dress. However, the second picture is horrible. I understand most people don't look good naked. And even those who do are sometimes caught in unflattering photos. Either way, the photo is not a good choice. Women are tired of trying to conform to Hollywood's idea of beautiful and for good reason. But hat doesn't mean a picture of a naked woman with a fat gut roll hanging over her womanly parts is 'beautiful,' plus-sized model or not. I like a curvy woman as much as the next man and I realize most women don't look like supermodels, but a picture like that not only isn't flattering to the model, it makes me wish she'd put on some clothes so her gut wouldn't distract me from enjoying her smile.
That's not her in the black dress, Booty, that's a different model called Whitney Thompson. Not even the same person.
Absolutely bad pose. But seriously, a size 12-14 is healthy, even at 5'11"? Sorry, she would be better off being an 8-10, that would be healthier. She is overweight, not obese, and magazines should not be encouraging it.
OMG!!! WANT!!!
:)
In the book "Zaftig," there are a number of studies and cultural biases reported that show that most men at most times actually do see heavier women as healthier, more desirable, more fertile. (It's actually a book that's mostly art plates, but there is fascinating commentary as well.) Lizzi Miller's pic made me drool and the pix in the connected gallery were all scrumptious. I have always preferred large women and I would love to see more models who looked real start showing up in magazines and on TV.
The embedded video says in the title "Average Sized Model ".
I like this term much more than Plus-Size. Plus-Size still conveys that anything outside the realm of thin-lanky-boney typical model appearance is still not normal, while Average Size reveals the truth we should all hear about our self-image.
average size is only now "average" because so many people are obese. Yes, when over 30% of the population is now obese in many states the "average" is pretty close to obese (especially considering over half of people are overweight).
Does that mean it should be a positive thing? I mean if everyone you know is fat instead of just 50 % of people, its still just as unhealthy as if only 1 in 100 people were obese. I wouldn't care as much if it wasn't my health care premium going up because so many people have that third helping and then don't get off the couch.
That the average weight in America is now heavily overweight is a travesty not something to be celebrated. The human body was not designed to carry a hundred pounds of excess fat (which is why it breaks down under the strain). The new "average" is a negative born of eating too much and doing too little and is heavily correlated with our "average" medical costs rising so quickly.
Finally "real" looking people selling to "real" buying people.
She is a pretty lady who I am sure will appeal to a much larger portion of the public then the weird looking aneorixic's forced on us.
Good luck to her, the companies backing her and the women who buy the stuff at the end of the day. If the public buys the stuff advertised this way then it will force the advertising world to adapt and present more "real" life images for us all to enjoy...
Why can only overweight and/or stupid people qualify as "real people" or "real Americans"? Why is caring about your health and mind innately "artificial"?
There are two kinds of people "really". There are aspirational people who try to make themselves better in body and mind each day, and there are dystopian people who don't care to make the effort and instead work on making everyone else worse and/or ridiculing those who make the effort in order to bring everyone down to their level. I sure hope human nature is "really" the former and not the latter even these days or we have a sad, sad future coming our way.
Yay for the belly roll.. We all have it, unless you're Madonna-like.
I don't have it and I know many people who don't. We are not Madonna-like.
There is a LONG range of body weights: it's not just anorexia vs. obesity.
You can have a normal body weight without a "belly-roll" if you exercise, lift-weights and get enough protein.
crymeariver,
and you make the point exactly...isn't the point of this conversation that all of the mags (the fashion industry really) only show extremely skinny, very tall people as the representative? Not to mention, they are mostly white in our multi-cultural multi-race country.
A woman who does not look like a paperclip....how wonderful for women everywhere to look "normal" and not anorexic and have that view be alright...and attractive. Men, I think would rather be close to a woman who does not make you feel as though you are embracing a paperclip.
Kim Kardashian looks "normal." Scarlett Johansson looks "normal." Anne Hathaway looks "normal." None of them are thin or fat. Because THAT is what's normal.
By relegating the debate to an either/or discussion where you're either "plus size" or anorexic, your poisoning the debate. And, rigging it.
I want a woman who you can't hear walking around in a different room in a house with wooden floors. I want a woman who doesn't have to get off the couch in stages.
Obesity is unhealthy... as is anorexia.
co-sign.
What's the best solution if someone is too lazy to improve themselves? Tell them they're fine the way they are of course! Never-mind that being overweight is unhealthy, better to just say a double digit size is "good enough" because after all "real women" don't think about their diet or exercise.
This "real women have curves" thing goes well with anti intellectualism (after all "real people" don't need to finish college anyway) and countless other dystopian impulses. Why have goals and aspirations at all? Its sure a lot easier to be fat stupid and uneducated so lets encourage it! Why would a society with serious problems and rising medical costs want to encourage people to be smart and healthy after all.
Perhaps a Fat Tax is in order.
politico83, it's ok if you don't think she's pretty (even though I do); but it's not really fair to decide someone who likes a tummy roll is lazy, anti-intellectual and doesn't want to improve themselves--please look at the Birth of Venus by Botticelli. Amazing resemblance!
Actually extensive research has shown that people who are fat actually ARE less intelligent then people who are skinny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531487/The-greater-your-weight-t he-lower-your-IQ-say-scientists.html
In that article it is shown that those who are fat are not only significantly less intelligent, on average, then those of a healthy weight, but they also continue to lose cognitive capacity at a high rate when they remain fat over the years. Fat is linked to lazy is linked to stupid.
The model is reasonably attractive, but would be far more so if she dropped 30 lbs (she would also be healthier and retain more of her intellectual capacity). There is no case where someone who is overweight or obese would not be better off losing some weight unless they are a professional level athlete and it is due to high muscle mass (which is clearly not the case here).
politico83 - I was fascinated by your statement 'those who are fat are not only significantly less intelligent, on average, then those of a healthy weight' so I took a look at The Telegraph article, which I found unconvincing. So I went looking and found...
http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/LS/fftid/obesity-weight-control/
Which references the same study, and in that article I found -> 'The cognitive differences were very modest, Cournot said'
I went looking for the article in Neurology and could only access the abstract...
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/7/1208
Which was beyond my comprehension in terms of how it relates to the above.
Personally I think The Telegraph garbled the message. I suspect what it should have said is something like what was at the end of the EUFIC article about similar study also published in Neurology...
"Fitness contributes to better cognitive ability in old age," study author Ian Deary concluded in a prepared statement. "Thus, [of] two people starting out with the same IQ at age 11, the fitter person at age 79 will, on average, have better cognitive function."
This I can believe. I feel better and think more clearly when I exercise regularly and eat right. I am not sure about memory function. I suspect this applies to everyone as individuals regardless of age.
I meant significant in its statistical meaning (IE the study shows that it is highly unlikely that such differences are due purely to chance, statistical significance). I do realize that it is not a difference between brilliance and absolute stupidity, but at the same time with the average IQ in the US sitting at 98 it would seem that people would be well served to keep what they have intact.
Even if it is only 10% over a lifetime (the low end estimate) as a result of being chronically overweight, is it really worth being 10% dumber to avoid doing some situps?
politico83 - Well, that's the sad thing. It doesn't even require sit-ups or any actively remotely resembling classical and boring 'exercise'. Some routine walking or hiking or biking in the fresh air plus moderate calorie intake would take care of it all.
Am I wrong for thinking that fat is unattractive? I also make sure to take the fat off whatever I eat--be it bacon or steak--because I don't like eating it either.
It's fine if women want to revolt against the "thin" culture we live in as long as they recognize that obesity is just as unhealthy as anorexia or any other eating disorder.
Just don't shove it down my throat that I have to think big is beautiful. It ain't.
Commentators: Is it possible to love the picture and love the "real woman" angle without hating on all skinny women? The point isn't limited to just showing women with meat on their bones. The point is to get these magazines to occasionally embrace reality--if that's a 5' 11" woman of 180 lbs with a C-cup or a 5' 4" woman of 120 lbs with an A-cup, then great. But let's not start denigrating one body type in order to bolster another.
stand away from the feed trough. soooeeee
Let me guess, you've got a set of truck nuts.
I have a neighbor who has a gorgeous wife. In every way. Even if you spend fifteen minutes with this guy he will find a way to tell you, in front of this wife, that she is fat.
This comes from a guy whose belly is so big you cannot see the crotch of his pants. He also has thinning hair and bad teeth.
Thats life!
Y'know, politico83, some friends of mine have in their possession a Victorian encyclopaedia that shows quite categorically, (with the aid of state- of-the-art-engravings), that black people's brains are smaller and therefore less efficient than white people's brains. My point? Bigots will believe whatever supports their fondly imagined right to berate, insult, belittle, ridicule and demonise any portion of society they don't happen to like the look of. Now run along, there's a dear; everybody's seen you.
bigots? Finding fat unattractive in no way is bigotry. A key component of bigotry is hating someone for something THEY CAN'T CHANGE. You know, something essential to their being such as race or sexual orientation (which is usually not particularly malleable)
Being fat is not one of these essential characteristics just as being ignorant is not an essential characteristic. Both very negative characteristics can be changed through effort (by learning and eating right/exercising). This ability for the fat to not be fat any longer if they have a little self discipline is precisely why "fat rights" movements are misguided. Fat people as a group cost healthy people money in higher medical costs (obesity is heavily related to chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease) so, until we have no insurance and purely individualized medical costs, fat people increase their burden on their pants AND everyone else's pocketbook.
Also arguments that being fat causes problems with cognitive function are not the same as arguments are race vs race (and aren't even based on brain size). They are, first off, based on empirical research, and secondly they seem to apply across all of humanity and are not simply a racial characteristic real or imagined.
Since ignorance and heft are both choices everyone has the right to be disdainful of both.
All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racist. You're assigning negative character traits (lazy) to a large, pardon the pun, segment of the population. While I admire the fact you bring evidence to support your intolerance, it's intolerance nonetheless.
Quoting from 19th century references? There are many folks who quote from antiquated fictional stories about Moses and Jesus yet receive PhD's for studying it. Would you call me a sexist if I said women's brains are 10% smaller than men's despite the scientific truth behind it? I understand Politico83's arguments. You don't. Are you equating his comment "fat=lazy=stupid" is to "black people are less efficient to white people" and calling him a bigot? I wouldn't call the Glamour model necessarily a tubby or fatty but it seems to justify our jealousies and culture of obesity in America. Keeping your body healthy from risks of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes seems like a pretty smart thing to do and those folks tend to be lean and toned. Being fat and doing nothing about it sounds really stupid. Now YOU run along and get off the couch.
Women are sick of unrealistic beauty ideals. The fact that there is an argument over this based on a women who is not even overweight but just has extra belly fat is so ridiculous. It is NOT ok to denigrate someone else's body & make judgments on their health & lifestyle based on the way they look.
Look at the real scientific data: Slightly overweight people actually live longer. Yes they are HEALTHIER, since the point of being healthy is to sustain the body as long as possible. So you may be lean & toned, but that doesn't mean you are healthier or will outlive persons who happen to have a belly roll.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-lo nger
Portraying stick-thin, flat stomached women as the ideal of health & beauty is not based on any scientific reality, but is just another way for people to make themselves feel superior & have an excuse to put others, especially women, down for being themselves. And by the way, in case you didn't realize, bodies are all different from each other. Some are just not meant to be stick thin, flat stomached, as that would be unhealthy, and it has nothing to do with laziness.
Yes, obesity is a problem if the person is truly unhealthy, like anorexia, but making people feel ugly & ashamed of themselves amidst a society who pushes unhealthy lifestyle choices upon them is unfair & doesn't help.
All right, I'm just going to have to assume the world has gone mad. Because looking at those two pictures(I didn't click on the gallery)--That's supposed to be a fat woman? That? You've got to be kidding me, that's not even close(my sister is over 200 pounds--that would be fat). No wonder anorexia is a plague.
I am a 59 year old 6-1 male and my stomach is about the same size
It took me to me mid 50s to achieve this
You are enabling a generation of future diabetics
Who will expect of course affordable healthcare
So, brian, you're a proponent of un-affordable health care, that is, the status quo? Is that what you're saying?
And you think it is "enabling" that the next generation might hope for "affordable" health care. God forbid that anyone would hope for, or expect, that.
Still, we're all, I'm sure, pleased to hear that your stomach is the "same size" but when you stop admiring yourself in the mirror, you might move beyond your narcissism and consider your fellow citizens.
I happened to click on the comments following this picture, and the vehement disgust expressed by the (presumably mostly male) commenters disturbed me so that I just had to create an account to comment.
Firstly, this picture stood out even without being originally splashed in the magazine. Normal Women (such as your wives, daughters and sisters) unanimously felt that they could identify with a belly roll, and it made us realise that we have never seen one in print, on a woman.
Fat, balding men are every where, on tv, in advertisements, but for some reason, a small belly roll on a woman is considered disgusting and a sign of sloth. When I see this picture, it doesn't make me feel like there's been a plus size revolution. She doesn't even have back fat, or flabby thighs. This picture and the following comments make me realise that men, whether or not they are unattractive (i'm going to assume the men commenting on this thread don't all have a body like ryan reynolds), feel entitled to slam a normal sized woman for not having the disciple to get rid of a small roll of fat. If this were an article about how bald men are getting accepted as models for products, would there be a string of mean comments about how receding hairlines could never be considered attractive on any planet, and that men who don't get hairplugs are slovenly?
My nearest available dictionary defines bigotry as "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions". The ability (or not) of those of the allegedly inferior group to change is quite beside the point.
Finding a physical characteristic unattractive is a personal preference. Finding it necessary to visit hateful invective on those who exhibit that physical characteristic
by invoking and upholding negative stereotypes is bigotry. Making sweeping generalisations about a demographic made up of countless individuals as if they were one monolithic group is also bigotry; as is quoting junk science ill-reported by a heavily and similarly biased media in order to justify personal prejudice and irrational hatred. My quoting a 19th century reference was to point out that there is nothing new in bigots using what passes for the scientific wisdom of the age to reinforce prejudice and validate their sense of superiority.
Physical appearance is not a reliable indicator of health. Health is neither a moral imperative nor a social obligation. Laziness and stupidity are no more the exclusive province of the fat than diabetes, cancer or heart disease are. And striving for self-acceptance in a culture where expressing self-hatred is considered a bonding ritual among women is scarcely a dystopian impulse.
We are one of the few societies in history which does not regard thin people as less healthy or attractive than heavier ones. An individual's preference for one body type over another is subjective; there is no such thing as right or wrong here. The widespread availability of junk food 24/7 has spawned an epidemic over excessive weight gain which now afflicts more than 1/3 of the country. As thin people become rarer, it is natural that they are more highly appreciated. The health benefits of smarter eating & regular exercise are widely recognized, & result in more people trying to lose weight than at any time in history.
Genetics gives us a starting point for determining our physique, then our lifestyle modifies it. If you don't like what you've got now, there are things you can do to change it.
Before accusing someone of being arrogant or elitist simply because of their preference for slender people, you must consider many factors, including the build of the person who prefers the slender. I'm 5'10", 140 lb. 28" waist, 4% total body fat, 56 yo, power walk 3 mi. at 5 AM daily. Yes, I find those "plus-size" women pictured to be obese & disgusting; no one wants to be next to someone who could smother you!
Yeah but her face is gorgeous. My guess is yours is not so much.
You're mistaken about the build of the person who prefers slender people of the opposite sex. I could put on 100 lbs tomorrow, and it's not going to make me like fat chicks. : -)
BTW, the girl in the photo isn't fat, or even "plus-sized". She's on the thin side of average. Unfortunately, average is now fat.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.