NationStates Jolt Archive

(Inspired by the "Fat people are ugly" and "Skinny people are ugly" threads.)

Weight is not the only factor when it comes to attractiveness: Anyone, whether they are slender or larger, can be considered unnattractive. But what is "skinny", and what is "fat"?

The following women are considered beautiful by various people. This is not a debate about whether their facial features are ugly - I am merely posing a question about where you draw the line in terms of weight.

Which numbers do you consider are healthy, "thin" or "fat"?
(sorry there's a maximum number of pics you can put up, so follow the links)

1. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/normal_IMG_1954.jpg

2. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=00330m.jpg

3. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/_keira-knightley-bikini-1-01.jpg

4. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=gemma-ward-757507.jpg

5. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/esther_canadas.gif

6. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=00280m.jpg

7. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/00045h.jpg

8. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/jennifer-hawkins-bikini.jpg

9. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/Tyra_Banks.jpg

10. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=DF_Knowles_366.jpg

11. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/kate_winslet.jpg

12. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/plus-size-fashion.jpg

13. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=0611_alley_sp.jpg

14. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/crystal26.jpg

15. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=fluvia3.jpg

16. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=academy-jenniferhudsonhb_preview.jpg

17. http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/?action=view&current=big_babe_linda.jpg

18. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/Monique-19.jpg

[All replies from this account will be from Amor Pulchritudo (who used to be Knowyourright)]

1-8 are all gorgeous, ideal in my opinion.

9,10,11 are acceptable, but not as sexy as the preceding 8.

The rest could certainly stand to lose some weight.

1. Thin
2. Thin
3. Healthy
4. Thin
5. Thin
6. Healthy
7. Healthy
8. Healthy
9. Healthy
10. Healthy
11. Healthy
12. Healthy
13. Healthy
14. Fat
15. Fat
16. Healthy
17. Fat
18. Fat

I would say that 1-5 are quite skinny (Though I always find Knightly to be absolutely gorgeous) 6-10 are in the level of what I would usually prefer, 11-13 are a bit chubby, and 14 to 18 are fat. But, I'm a rather large boy myself, so my views would quite likely be skewed.

Too female-centred.

It's really hard to tell based on the angle of some of the pictures.
#1 might be a bit on the side of being too thin, but all we can see is that you can see her ribs, that doesn't mean that she's too thin necessarily... I mean, you can't see the rest of her.
#2 looks ok
#3 looks like she's rather athletic (she's got a 6-pack)
#4 looks ok but that shirt looks like it's flattening her chest
#5 looks fine
#6 is quite covered on her top half so it's hard to tell
#7 and 8 look fine
I can't see past the horribly cut on the underwear bottoms for #9
#10, 11 and 12 look fine
#13 looks chubby in a bad way
#14 looks volumptuous (and hot)
#15 looks kinda fat
#16 looks fine
#17 could be fat, but she could just have huge tits that take up the whole picture
#18 is definitely fat.

Too female-centred.
Then make your own thread about male fatness.

Then make your own thread about male fatness.

Why invest time in unpleasantness?

Why invest time in unpleasantness?
Ok, then don't complain about this thread.

Or evaluate people anyways, it's not like this thread will be ignored by straight girls or something...

Too female-centred.

My apologies - It's easier to find photographs of women of all sizes who are still attractive, and the weight-debate unfortunately tends to centre around women moreso than men.

...I can't see past the horribly cut on the underwear bottoms for #9 ...

#9 is Trya Banks from America's next top model.

-- Amor Pulchritudo

...Or evaluate people anyways, it's not like this thread will be ignored by straight girls or something...

That's true.

More women obsess over weight than men!

-- Amor Pulchritudo

Ok, then don't complain about this thread.

"Other - Please elaborate".

Or evaluate people anyways, it's not like this thread will be ignored by straight girls or something...

I can't evaluate them because "thin" and "fat" in this instance are not objective measurements. They are subjective and coupled with attraction (no matter the OP's futile insistence to the contrary) and I can't judge women as astutely by them as I can men. If this had been a row of males I would have almost instantaneously been able to organise them by attractiveness and "sensed" what I found acceptable and not. I can't here. All I can go by are fashion clichés and those are not a fair representation, especially if one buys that old saying that they are dictated by gay men...

#9 is Trya Banks from America's next top model.
I know who she is. I greatly don't like her because she's a crazy bitch. But the cut on the underwear is atrocious.

1. Skinny

2. Skinny

3. Skinny

4. Skinny

5. Skinny

6. Skinny - Healthy

7. Skinny - Healthy

8. Skinny - Healthy

9. Skinny - Healthy

10. Skinny - Healthy

11. Skinny - Healthy

12. Healthy - Fat

13. Healthy - Fat

14. Healthy - Fat

15. Fat

16. Healthy

17. Fat

18. Fat

It's really hard to tell based on the angle of some of the pictures.
#1 might be a bit on the side of being too thin, but all we can see is that you can see her ribs, that doesn't mean that she's too thin necessarily... I mean, you can't see the rest of her.

I tried to get a range of pics. Full body-shots are hard to come by unless they're of runway models.

And I have to disagree about #1 - I honestly think if your chest bones protrude that much, you must be unhealthy. Some people are naturally thin, but her chest resembles that of a starving child... to me, anyway.

-- Amor Pulchritudo

All I can go by are fashion clichés and those are not a fair representation, especially if one buys that old saying that they are dictated by gay men...

Having said that, if I were to go by such pure standards I would have to say that up to 8 they are all OK, 9 is quite iffy around the hips, and the rest are bovine.

I can't evaluate them because "thin" and "fat" in this instance are not objective measurements. They are subjective and coupled with attraction (no matter the OP's futile insistence to the contrary) and I can't judge women as astutely by them as I can men. If this had been a row of males I would have almost instantaneously been able to organise them by attractiveness and "sensed" what I found acceptable and not. I can't here. All I can go by are fashion clichés and those are not a fair representation, especially if one buys that old saying that they are dictated by gay men...

I don't insist that attractiveness and weight are completely separate. I didn't, however, want a debate like the "fat people are ugly" thread.

Which of the women do you find sexually appealing, or at least healthy? Which ones fall out of that catagory? Which ones should change their diets, either to include more food or to include less?

Fashion cliches aside, what do YOU think. That's the beauty of free speech. It's a pity that media seems to have changed people's minds about healthy weights...

-- Amor Pulchritudo

Having said that, if I were to go by such pure standards I would have to say that up to 8 they are all OK, 9 is quite iffy around the hips, and the rest are bovine.

So do you think any of them are too thin?

-- Amor Pulchritudo

1 - 5 are too skinny. 18 is too fat. Every other chick is just fine.

I tried to get a range of pics. Full body-shots are hard to come by unless they're of runway models.

And I have to disagree about #1 - I honestly think if your chest bones protrude that much, you must be unhealthy. Some people are naturally thin, but her chest resembles that of a starving child... to me, anyway.

-- Amor Pulchritudo
She also does have boobs.

I dunno, I mean, I'm well in the "healthy weight range" and my ribs are sometimes a bit visible between my boobs... not as much as hers, but still.

Why was 16 put up at 16? It doesn't look like #16 is fat or anything, though I might be just saying that since I'm at about the same level of thiness/fatness as #16. ;)

I can't evaluate them because "thin" and "fat" in this instance are not objective measurements. They are subjective and coupled with attraction (no matter the OP's futile insistence to the contrary) and I can't judge women as astutely by them as I can men. If this had been a row of males I would have almost instantaneously been able to organise them by attractiveness and "sensed" what I found acceptable and not. I can't here. All I can go by are fashion clichés and those are not a fair representation, especially if one buys that old saying that they are dictated by gay men...

STOP BIENG GAY THAN U P00F :p

Having said that, if I were to go by such pure standards I would have to say that up to 8 they are all OK, 9 is quite iffy around the hips, and the rest are bovine.

Better.

On topic, as someone mentioned it can be pretty difficult to tell from these pictures, but the other thing is whether or not you are healthy doesn't solely rest with being or looking fat. That being said, I think 12 and up are "too" fat, whatever that means.

So do you think any of them are too thin?

Nope.

Amor Pulchritudo

Love beauty? You omit "voluptas" or in certain versions "castitas", and you put them in the wrong order.

Why was 16 put up at 16? It doesn't look like #16 is fat or anything, though I might be just saying that since I'm at about the same level of thiness/fatness as #16. ;)

I suppose that's fairly nice. And attractive.

Love beauty? You omit "voluptas" or in certain versions "castitas", and you put them in the wrong order.

It's my NS name. I'm just posting on Rotovia's account, and I'm the first person to admit that my latin isn't up to scratch.

Why was 16 put up at 16? It doesn't look like #16 is fat or anything, though I might be just saying that since I'm at about the same level of thiness/fatness as #16. ;)

I tried to order them according to their size. 16 is Jennifer Hudson, and she is a bigger girl. I didn't say she was fat. I haven't even said who I consider "too large" or "too small". In that dress her body is very flattered, but I assume she is at least an AUS 16 or 18. http://www.onlineconversion.com/clothing_womens.htm

She is, however, beautiful.

-- Amor Pulchritudo

It's my NS name. I'm just posting on Rotovia's account, and I'm the first person to admit that my latin isn't up to scratch.

Put in the signature proper, then, and not within the post. It is a breach of etiquette to have a signature that other posters cannot choose to turn off as they can a proper signature, and it's also quite annoying to have to edit it out every single time one chooses to respond to you.

All in all: the signature setting in the user control panel is there for a reason. Kindly do not circumvent it.

Put in the signature proper, then, and not within the post. It is a breach of etiquette to have a signature that other posters cannot choose to turn off as they can a proper signature, and it's also quite annoying to have to edit it out every single time one chooses to respond to you.

All in all: the signature setting in the user control panel is there for a reason. Kindly do not circumvent it.

Oh my, a grammar flaw. That's nearly as bad as my latin!

You're just annoyed because we have different views. The end.

Put in the signature proper, then, and not within the post. It is a breach of etiquette to have a signature that other posters cannot choose to turn off as they can a proper signature, and it's also quite annoying to have to edit it out every single time one chooses to respond to you.

All in all: the signature setting in the user control panel is there for a reason. Kindly do not circumvent it.

Oh, the humanity :rolleyes:

Oh, the humanity :rolleyes:

http://homepage.mac.com/barthold.van.acker/realbasic/ohthehumanity.jpg

I had to do it.

I had to do it.

[/end threadjack]

8, 9, 10, and 11 are almost ideal.

All preceding 8 are far too thin... When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out. It's called eating. All following 11, however, are too big. For their body types, anyway. If 12 and 13 were shorter with the same body mass, they'd look fine.

*snip*
All preceding 8 are far too thin... When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out. *snip*.

I agree.

Oh my, a grammar flaw. That's nearly as bad as my latin!

The missing pronoun was a typo, not a grammatical error.

You're just annoyed because we have different views. The end.

Aww, it's cute how you think I give a shit about your views.

=Fassigen;12967809
Aww, it's cute how you think I give a shit about your views.

It's nearly as sweet as how you keep posting on a thread I made, despite claiming you have no interest in my views!

Go bang some bones.

I agree.Naw. I eat plenty, definitely within healthey weight range, and in good shape. If I breathe in, you can see my ribs. It's just a slight body type.

They're all too skinny except the last two. I wouldn't feel attracted to the first 16, the most attractive is no 17.

It's nearly as sweet as how you keep posting on a thread I made, despite claiming you have no interest in my views!

But it's oh, so adorable of you to imagine as you do that I have dealt with any of your views so far in this thread, when in fact I've not. You invent what isn't there almost as well as the true Rotovia-.

Go bang some bones.

Aww, is your body resembling that of the 10s and upwards? That's not my fault, so lash inwards, or have another bonbon.

Why invest time in unpleasantness?

I have no life.. *runs off to Google*

But it's oh, so adorable of you to imagine as you do that I have dealt with any of your views so far in this thread, when in fact I've not. You invent what isn't there almost as well as the true Rotovia-.


Your talent seems to be pointing out irrelevent flaws, without addressing the issue itself, if you could call that a talent. (Which I wouldn't, just so you don't get excited)


Aww, is your body resembling that of the 10s and upwards? That's not my fault, so lash inwards, or have another bonbon.

My body resembles 9-11, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps you're unhappy with yourself. After all, your arguing as though this is highschool!

Naw. I eat plenty, definitely within healthey weight range, and in good shape. If I breathe in, you can see my ribs. It's just a slight body type.

I can understand that some people are naturally slender. Unlike some other people, I'm not trying to use the words "thin" or "fat" (or "bigger", "skinny" etc) to refer to attractiveness. I'm sure that if your ribs just show when you breathe in, and you eat lots, you're healthy + fine, and just naturally thin.

It just so happens that my favourite body types are those more like 9, and I personally think that those under 8 are thin (but not ugly!). Everybody's different. :)

Your talent seems to be pointing out irrelevent flaws, without addressing the issue itself, if you could call that a talent. (Which I wouldn't, just so you don't get excited)

I did address the OP. You even responded to that, and that's where your injured "bones" comment came from. So, who are you kidding except yourself?

My body resembles 9-11, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Sure there isn't, and you keep telling yourself that. Keep at least your spirit weightless that way!

Perhaps you're unhappy with yourself. After all, your arguing as though this is highschool!

This is worse than high school, sweety, this is NS General so don't try to dish what you can't take - unless it's on your plate, apparently.

I did address the OP. You even responded to that, and that's where your injured "bones" comment came from. So, who are you kidding except yourself?

Oh, that's right. You're the one that thinks protruding chest bones aren't an idicator of someone being too thin!

I'd post some pictures you'd like, but I felt it was a little immoral to search for "starved boys world vision".

I have no life.. *runs off to Google*

Way too much effort. *looks at p0rn*

I can understand that some people are naturally slender. Unlike some other people, I'm not trying to use the words "thin" or "fat" (or "bigger", "skinny" etc) to refer to attractiveness. I'm sure that if your ribs just show when you breathe in, and you eat lots, you're healthy + fine, and just naturally thin.

It just so happens that my favourite body types are those more like 9, and I personally think that those under 8 are thin (but not ugly!). Everybody's different. :)
I like curves too. Looking like a little boy at 20 (me) isn't really all that.

This is worse than high school, sweety, this is NS General so don't try to dish what you can't take - unless it's on your plate, apparently.Jeesh. It's not NSG without some lively vitriol I guess.

Oh, that's right. You're the one that thinks protruding chest bones aren't an idicator of someone being too thin!

And you're the one with self-professed hips like a heifer. So? You started this thread to get injured by people thinking your ilk fat? Honey, that's just sad in how projecting it is. Don't ask for truthful opinions you're not mature enough to handle.

I'd post some pictures you'd like, but I felt it was a little immoral to search for "starved boys world vision".

Seems like you forgot the post where I wrote my standards for men are different. An awful lot of forgetting things already written seems to be happening to you as you in this futile fashion try to come up with third rate ripostes. Could be a blood sugar thing.

Too female-centred.

For once, I have to agree with Fass.

1-Thin
2-Thin
3-Healthy(Note she is not actually stickish in the least, and has a good deal of muscles on her body)
4-Thin
5-Start of my personal preference, not terribly thin, but definitely small.
6-Hard to tell
7-Ideal(For my preference)
8-Ideal(For my preference)
9-Ideal(For my preference)
10-Decent size, but not attractive(Has a crack addict look about her)
11-beginning of fat
12-fat
13-fat
14-fat
15-fat
16-Not terrible.
17-Fat
18-fat

And you're the one with self-professed hips like a heifer. So? You started this thread to get injured by people thinking your ilk fat? Honey, that's just sad in how projecting it is. Don't ask for truthful opinions you're not mature enough to handle.

No, I started this thread because I was interested in opinions. I read both the "skinny people are ugly" and "fat people are ugly" thread, and it seems people have hugely different opinions about what is "healthy", "fat" or "skinny".

Please point out exactly where I've said I have said "hips like a heifer". Perhaps my blood sugar was so high I forgot.:rolleyes: Or maybe, just maybe, you will find that I have said I have a BMI over 25 (it's like 25.5) and that I have curves.

I don't think you realise this, but I don't want to argue with you.

No, I started this thread because I was interested in opinions. I read both the "skinny people are ugly" and "fat people are ugly" thread, and it seems people have hugely different opinions about what is "healthy", "fat" or "skinny".

And apparently to lash out in a wounded fashion at people who found fat the people you don't - the people you identify with.

Please point out exactly where I've said I have said "hips like a heifer". Perhaps my blood sugar was so high I forgot.:rolleyes: Or maybe, just maybe, you will find that I have said I have a BMI over 25 (it's like 25.5) and that I have curves.

"My body resembles 9-11"

I don't think you realise this, but I don't want to argue with you.

Should have thought of that before you started acting all offended at the truth.

And apparently to lash out in a wounded fashion at people who found fat the people you don't - the people you identify with.



"My body resembles 9-11"



Should have thought of that before you started acting all offended at the truth.

Fass, you're a hypocrite. After your wounded, offended responses in the "infidelity" thread, you have the temerity to accuse another? Pot meet kettle.

My body resembles 9-11

That's an unlucky coincidence...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/9-11.jpg

Fass, you're a hypocrite. After your wounded, offended responses in the "infidelity" thread, you have the temerity to accuse another? Pot meet kettle.

He should at least be pleased that I didn't have the audacity to bring up the fact that he's a cheater.

That's an unlucky coincidence...*snip*
HAHA!

I meant Tyra Banks/Beyonce/Kate Winslet.

*giggles*

Fass, you're a hypocrite. After your wounded, offended responses in the "infidelity" thread, you have the temerity to accuse another? Pot meet kettle.

You need to learn to read threads. You really do.

He should at least be pleased that I didn't have the audacity to bring up the fact that he's a cheater.

You should be disappointed, as you no doubt are, that I wouldn't have cared either way.

I think number 9 looks the best.
1,2,4,5 - too skinny
3,7,8 - skinny healthy
6- too covered to tell but from what I can see the above category
9,10,11,12 - healthy
13,14 - healthy fat
15-18 - too fat

I presonally am closest to 3 or at least I would be were I female.

1-6 are too skinny, with the exception of 3 (knightly)... she's skinny but looks healthy for it

7, 8, and 9 are all healthy and good-looking. 9 looks healthiest and best to me

10 is a tiny picture i can barely see.

11 looks healthy enough but is wearing a terrible dress

12-18 are not so good to me

When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out
That's very much not true. I have plenty of bones visible and I''m perfectly healthy (well, I'm a guy). It really depends on your body type.

Of the pictures, 1 and 2 are emaciated; 4 and 6 I find hard to tell, but I think they are a bit on the skinny side. 5 is borderline. 18 could do with a few kg less, although I don't find her grossly obese. The rest is perfectly fine.

"Other - Please elaborate".



I can't evaluate them because "thin" and "fat" in this instance are not objective measurements. They are subjective and coupled with attraction (no matter the OP's futile insistence to the contrary) and I can't judge women as astutely by them as I can men. If this had been a row of males I would have almost instantaneously been able to organise them by attractiveness and "sensed" what I found acceptable and not. I can't here. All I can go by are fashion clichés and those are not a fair representation, especially if one buys that old saying that they are dictated by gay men...

The whole point of this thread is the subjectiveness of "thin" and "fat"... at what point did your dedication to being annoying surpass your basic reasoning abilities...?

~Rotovia (yes, I'm not dead)

i'd say 1,2,4,5 and 6 look like they'd snapin a gust of wind, which can't be a healthy situation. knightly is thin but she wouldn't be able to build those muscles without eating healthily i wouldn't have thought. i'd say only the last two look unhealthily fat.

Too female-centred.

No such thing, silly.

As for the pics:

1-4 (too) skinny

5-10 and 13 perfectly fine (with #6 excempt because she's wrapped in fucking fur, so no possibility to judge)

11-12, 14-15 : still okay, though somewhat overweight (#15 hard to judge because you see her boobs only, basically)

16-17: rather overweight, but not 'fat'

18: overweight in the 'fat', i.e. not attractive for me range

1 - 6 are too skinny, and I disagree with PM about Knightley - she is Skeletor! Eat some pies, lass!

7-16 range from "slim" to "chubby", but not so far either way to be unattractive for it.

17 I can't tell; as has been said she might be a bit too fat, or she might have huge boobs.

18 is too much of a good thing.

Saying that, I'd rather have 18 than 1-5.

Put in the signature proper, then, and not within the post. It is a breach of etiquette to have a signature that other posters cannot choose to turn off as they can a proper signature, and it's also quite annoying to have to edit it out every single time one chooses to respond to you.

All in all: the signature setting in the user control panel is there for a reason. Kindly do not circumvent it.

Shut up Fass. We're in the damned NSG, good forum etiquette is not passing out on the keyboard.

~Rotovia

1 - 6 are too skinny, and I disagree with PM about Knightley - she is Skeletor! Eat some pies, lass!

7-16 range from "slim" to "chubby", but not so far either way to be unattractive for it.

17 I can't tell; as has been said she might be a bit too fat, or she might have huge boobs.

18 is too much of a good thing.

Saying that, I'd rather have 18 than 1-5.

Keira Knightley is definitely too thin. She's been the subject of so many "this celeb is anorexic" articles. She defends herself & according to something I recently read, she's trying to put on more weight.


Sigh, as much as I think (if I were a guy) I'd rather have Monique (18), as a woman I'd rather look like 1-5. Unfortunately in the society I live in, being that large at my age (17 nearly 18) would make me the subject of endless fat taunts and jokes.

When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out. It's called eating.

I eat enough food and my rib bones, hip bones, and collar bone have pretty much always been showing, though definitely not to the extent that 1 and 2 are. I hate it when people assume that I must be anorexic just because I'm naturally thin.

1 seems a bit too skinny and 18 seems a bit too big. I'm not very good at judging stuff like that though.

1-10 look too thin for my taste, but they are probably fine...

11-17 look fine to me, 12 is about my size, so I have to say that's okay, since I like me right now

18 isn't appealing to me, because she has a bad attitude, so I can't really judge whether or not that is her weight.

Even though some of them are hot already as they are 1-8 would look better with a bit more and 15-18 would look better with a bit less. But anything except "bones are visible" or "looks too clumsy to get through an obstacle course" can look good if they carry what they have well.

Also, the face is more important then the body. And charms is more important then looks.

Even though some of them are hot already as they are 1-8 would look better with a bit more and 15-18 would look better with a bit less. But anything except "bones are visible" or "looks too clumsy to get through an obstacle course" can look good if they carry what they have well.

The face is more important then the body. And charms is more important then looks.

QFT

Didn't look at all the pictures:

1 needs to be put on an emergency cheeseburger and fudge diet immediately.

The others save for 18 are at varying degrees of good-looking, some could stand to shed a few, some could stand to gain a few.

1 is way too skinny
2 could gain SOME weight
3-16 are normal/average range
17 & 18 could shed some pounds. Look at their arms -- that's not "I'm big boned/healthy". That's...jiggle.

All preceding 8 are far too thin... When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out. It's called eating. All following 11, however, are too big. For their body types, anyway. If 12 and 13 were shorter with the same body mass, they'd look fine.
Umm... I have bones visible and I'm perfectly healthy.

1. skinny
2. walking skeleton
3. slender with nice abs
4. skeletoon
5. skinny
6. skinny
7. slender
8. slender
9. about right
10. ok, but ass too big.
11. starting to edge into tubbyville.
12. a couple more pounds and Greenpeace'd be there to rub linament into her and roll her back into the sea.
13. could crush (and hide) a man's head in those thighs.
14. diplomatically I'd call her voluptuous.
15. not so much teetering on the edge of tubbyness but falling right in. What a sound she'll make when she hits!
16. well rounded, fuller figure but with the bone structure to make it look good.
17. mmm...udders.
18. Cap'n Ahab, it's the black whale!

#3 is about my lower limit for weight(she looks like she works out a lot, so maybe she does a little too much cardio).

Kirstie Alley and Kate Winslet(although these days, she's looking quite slim, actually) would be about the upper limit.

1: She looks delerious from hunger. Send her to a buffet, stat!

2: Hey look, its' the last survivor of Auschwitz...

3: Ewwwwwww...

4: Big head, small body, bald head, flat chest. Gee, what more could anyone want? :rolleyes:

5: We mean no harm to your planet, we just need all your dairy cows and pigs on our mothership, STAT!

6: Nice clothes, but she's probably a skeleton underneath.

7: Better. Still too skinny for me.

8: Getting warmer...

9: Warmer...

10: Nice ass.

11: Wider hips I like, but the face is kind of man-ish...

12: I like the general thickness, but her hips could be alot wider.

13: Whide hips, thick body, blonde, an okay face...I like.

14: I love this chick. In every (physical) way.

15: VERY nice. 'Cept for the face, but I can't really complain.

16: Good, 'cept for the hairstyle.

17: I like the maturity in this one. And the big boobs. And I want to eat this woman out.

18: Fat women are cool, but if her face were better, i'd like her alot more.

1. skinny
2. walking skeleton
3. slender with nice abs
4. skeletoon
5. skinny
6. skinny
7. slender
8. slender
9. about right
10. ok, but ass too big.
11. starting to edge into tubbyville.
12. a couple more pounds and Greenpeace'd be there to rub linament into her and roll her back into the sea.
13. could crush (and hide) a man's head in those thighs.
14. diplomatically I'd call her voluptuous.
15. not so much teetering on the edge of tubbyness but falling right in. What a sound she'll make when she hits!
16. well rounded, fuller figure but with the bone structure to make it look good.
17. mmm...udders.
18. Cap'n Ahab, it's the black whale!

You just made beer come out my nose.

You heartless anus.

This thread seems more about sexual appeal than health, so without meaning to be shallow, I'm going for the sexist-as-ever "I would/wouldn't" scale

1 - Skinny, but I can't tell if she's too skinny. I would.
2 - Too skinny. Looks unhealthy. I wouldn't.
3 - Too skinny, looks unhealthy, but I still would. A flaw in the system, there.
4 - Eurgh no. Far too skinny. Looks like an emaciated child. I wouldn't.
5 - Probably too skinny, but it doesn't look unhealthy. I would.
6 - Looks fairly healthy, more slim than skinny. I would.
7 - Looks very healthy, close to ideal. I would.
8 - Maybe the healthiest/most normal looking of the lot. I would.
9 - Healthy-looking. About right. I would.
10 - Wonderful figure. Very healthy, very curvy. I would.
11 - Also very healthy looking, most of the time (she can be a bit skinny sometimes). I would.
12 - She looks like she's classed as overweight. I think her figure looks nice though. I would.
13 - Ideal. Healthy, pretty much slap bang in the middle. I would.
14 - Probably would be beneficial to lose a few pounds, but not much. I would.
15 - Lovely figure, if a bit wide at the hips. I would.
16 - Seems very healthy, but I wouldn't.
17 - Can't really tell other than her breasts and face. Looks quite large though. I wouldn't.
18 - I'm sorry, but no. Much too big, and not an appealing face. I wouldn't.


Please note:
The 'I would' was very much used in jest, I don't imagine that it will cause offense to many males, but to females, know it was tongue-in-cheek.

Also note:
I am probably closest to #17, in terms of size.

The last couple are fat. All the others are pretty much as attractive as one picture of a person can possibly be.

But it's oh, so adorable of you to imagine as you do that I have dealt with any of your views so far in this thread, when in fact I've not. You invent what isn't there almost as well as the true Rotovia-.


Aww, is your body resembling that of the 10s and upwards? That's not my fault, so lash inwards, or have another bonbon.

Fassigen, you remind me of someone I don't like.

Honestly, what was the purpose of saying the above and the slew of other insults that followed?

Of course, you wouldn't care about my opinion, though you may fling a 'cleverly' worded insult in my direction for saying this.


At any rate, I was too lazy to type up everything, but the first few are too skinny, the last few are too fat and some of them are of a healthy weight. Number 7 wins the thread though.

Too female-centred.I concur. No. 3 was fuckable tho.

4-13 are in my personal "attractive" range -- that is, someone outside that range is rather unlikely to be attractive to me. I'm giving 4 the benefit of the doubt because the face is throwing me off and while I can't see her body well at all, I also can't see any visible ribs.

MY LAPTOP IS SO GHEY.
I don't know how, but my last post got magically deleted. :headbang:
I concur. No. 3 was fuckable tho.

Because she looks like a 13 year old boy.


10. ok, but ass too big.


10: Nice ass.

I don't even need to argue the point!

This thread seems more about sexual appeal than health, so without meaning to be shallow, I'm going for the sexist-as-ever "I would/wouldn't" scale

1 - Skinny, but I can't tell if she's too skinny. I would.
2 - Too skinny. Looks unhealthy. I wouldn't.
3 - Too skinny, looks unhealthy, but I still would. A flaw in the system, there.
4 - Eurgh no. Far too skinny. Looks like an emaciated child. I wouldn't.
5 - Probably too skinny, but it doesn't look unhealthy. I would.
6 - Looks fairly healthy, more slim than skinny. I would.
7 - Looks very healthy, close to ideal. I would.
8 - Maybe the healthiest/most normal looking of the lot. I would.
9 - Healthy-looking. About right. I would.
10 - Wonderful figure. Very healthy, very curvy. I would.
11 - Also very healthy looking, most of the time (she can be a bit skinny sometimes). I would.
12 - She looks like she's classed as overweight. I think her figure looks nice though. I would.
13 - Ideal. Healthy, pretty much slap bang in the middle. I would.
14 - Probably would be beneficial to lose a few pounds, but not much. I would.
15 - Lovely figure, if a bit wide at the hips. I would.
16 - Seems very healthy, but I wouldn't.
17 - Can't really tell other than her breasts and face. Looks quite large though. I wouldn't.
18 - I'm sorry, but no. Much too big, and not an appealing face. I wouldn't.


Please note:
The 'I would' was very much used in jest, I don't imagine that it will cause offense to many males, but to females, know it was tongue-in-cheek.

Also note:
I am probably closest to #17, in terms of size.

I just wrote the longest explanation of why your "I would"/"I wouldn't" approach is, in essence, perfectly in tune with the instinctive human radar of what's "too fat", "healthy" and "too skinny", but I deleted it somehow. Anyway...

I am astounded at the amount of men who are attracted to figures such as 1 & 2. It is the instinct of animals (and it should be the same with humans) to further their species. A suitable woman (or to put it bluntly, "mate") needs to be healthy in order to produce a healthy offspring. Women with a very low weight often suffer from amenorrhea, and those with very large weights can be prone to PCOS, menstrual problems and even infertility. Also, a woman should ideally have hips wide enough to withstand pregnancy. While weight isn't a perfect indicator of health, it's the best we have.

Looking at it objectively, and excluding any knowledge of medical history and BMI (which is often incorrect), the ideal physical specimens are probably those between [EDIT: or even 5/6/7 - they are attractive, but slender] 8 and perhaps 14-15. I suppose, that in times of famine, those with slower metabolisms and those predisposed to gaining more weight, such as 16 could even be considered "healthy" in terms of producing offspring, because they would be able to survive, whereas 1-5 could potentially fall to starvation.

So basically, in essence, sex appeal and the concept of health go hand-in-hand. "I wouldn't" probably means they're either much too thin or much too large, and "I would" should place them in the "healthy" category.

The flaw in today's society is that the media has turned natural instinct upside-down. At least I hope we can blame the media. After all, what is natural, normal or even sane about being attracted to an emaciated frame?

- Amor Pulchritudo

My 2 cents after a very quick run-through:

1-4 too skinny
5-6 skinny, but probably not unhealthy
14-16 heavy, but not unattractive
17 hard to tell from the angle of the shot
18 unhealthy heavy

1. Not enough information on the rest of the body

2. Skinny

3. Normal/muscular

4. Not enough information on the rest of the body

5. Skinny

6. Not enough information on the rest of the body/normal

7. Normal

8. Normal

9. Normal

10. Normal

11. Normal

12. Normal

13. Overweight (The legs aren't fooling anyone, your diet phailed.)

14. Overweight

15. Slightly overweight but has great sex appeal (The curves! The curves!)

16. Slightly overweight

17. Overweight

18. Obese

That is all.

1 - 5 are too skinny. 18 is too fat. Every other chick is just fine.

Ya.

Aside from the facial expression, I think I found 14 the most attractive.

MY LAPTOP IS SO GHEY.
I don't know how, but my last post got magically deleted. :headbang:


Because she looks like a 13 year old boy.





I don't even need to argue the point!



I just wrote the longest explanation of why your "I would"/"I wouldn't" approach is, in essence, perfectly in tune with the instinctive human radar of what's "too fat", "healthy" and "too skinny", but I deleted it somehow. Anyway...

I am astounded at the amount of men who are attracted to figures such as 1 & 2. It is the instinct of animals (and it should be the same with humans) to further their species. A suitable woman (or to put it bluntly, "mate") needs to be healthy in order to produce a healthy offspring. Women with a very low weight often suffer from amenorrhea, and those with very large weights can be prone to PCOS, menstrual problems and even infertility. Also, a woman should ideally have hips wide enough to withstand pregnancy. While weight isn't a perfect indicator of health, it's the best we have.

Looking at it objectively, and excluding any knowledge of medical history and BMI (which is often incorrect), the ideal physical specimens are probably those between 8 and perhaps 14-15. I suppose, that in times of famine, those with slower metabolisms and those predisposed to gaining more weight, such as 16 could even be considered "healthy" in terms of producing offspring, because they would be able to survive, whereas 1-5 could potentially fall to starvation.

So basically, in essence, sex appeal and the concept of health go hand-in-hand. "I wouldn't" probably means they're either much too thin or much too large, and "I would" should place them in the "healthy" category.

The flaw in today's society is that the media has turned natural instinct upside-down. At least I hope we can blame the media. After all, what is natural, normal or even sane about being attracted to an emaciated frame?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please be quiet.

Because she looks like a 13 year old boy.

I just wrote the longest explanation of why your "I would"/"I wouldn't" approach is, in essence, perfectly in tune with the instinctive human radar of what's "too fat", "healthy" and "too skinny", but I deleted it somehow. Anyway...So... Being slim and in reasonable shape... means you're a 13 year old boy? You're being ridiculous.

Just out of curiousity, why is it your preference for not-so-slim people means they're fit for breeding, while mine doesn't?

Get a grip, yeh?

8, 9, 10, and 11 are almost ideal.

All preceding 8 are far too thin... When bones are visible, you have issues that need to be worked out. It's called eating. All following 11, however, are too big. For their body types, anyway. If 12 and 13 were shorter with the same body mass, they'd look fine.

I'm getting really annoyed at people saying this now. I'd fall in the category of 2-5, and i do eat. So stop assuming that I am underweight because I am starving myself- it annoys the crap out of me and other people who are just skinny.

On the other hand, they do look quite scary :(

I think no 9 is about right, which happily is also about my size / build. I used to be more like no 5, which was a lot easier for buying clothes, but less attractive in my opinion and I'm much happier with my curves.

No 2 looks starved to me, I can't believe she is healthy :( no 3 looks very healthy because she has very toned flesh rather than no flesh.

Kate Winslet looks very good and the last few are definitely chubby, but not less attractive.

*feels ugly yet f#$%king again*

I'd have to see them in person to decide if they were sexy or not. I'd have to know their eating and working out patterns to see if they were healthy or not.

Ya.

Aside from the facial expression, I think I found 14 the most attractive.

Hi! I haven't seen you around for a while :)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please be quiet.

Well that was an educational and informative post.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please be quiet.

Then argue.

So... Being slim and in reasonable shape... means you're a 13 year old boy? You're being ridiculous.

Just out of curiousity, why is it your preference for not-so-slim people means they're fit for breeding, while mine doesn't?

Get a grip, yeh?

She isn't "slim and in reasonable shape"... She has a six-pack and is very very thin. Maybe she trains as an athlete. Maybe she's naturally muscular with a fast metabolism. Maybe she's healthy... but you can't help the resemblence...

I couldn't bring myself to google "13 year old boy", but...
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/beachboy239.jpg
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/_keira-knightley-bikini-1-01.jpg



I'm getting really annoyed at people saying this now. I'd fall in the category of 2-5, and i do eat. So stop assuming that I am underweight because I am starving myself- it annoys the crap out of me and other people who are just skinny.

On the other hand, they do look quite scary :(

If you eat healthy, I'm sure you're fine. You're probably just one of the rare naturally thin people.

1-2 and even 3-4 do look a little on the "scary" thin side, I must admit, but that was the point. I consider every single one of the girls facially attractive, and I think they would appeal to a range of people. Personally, I feel that 1 and 18 both need to seek medical attention, even if they are naturally that way and even if they eat healthily.

I think you can sometimes tell if someone is unhealthily underweight because their bones show and their stomachs are sunken, but in your case your bones might show and you could be fine. When I had a BMI of 22 (which is apparently healthy), my chest bones showed and my skin was yellow. Every body is different... Don't take offence anyway - in the end, to be cliche, beauty is on the inside.

1-6 look too thin in my opinion, though 3 and 5 appear to have a little more flesh on their bones.

17 and 18 are too overweight. 15 is a little too pudgy in my opinion.

Hi! I haven't seen you around for a while :)

Hey. :) Yeah, I took a bit of a break.

9 & 16 look better than the rest. What is number 4, a model?

9 & 16 look better than the rest. What is number 4, a model?

1. "Real Thin" girl. Unless you're an eating disordered live-journaler, don't worry.
2. Runway model.
3. Keira Knightly, actress.
4. Gemma Ward, well-known Australian runway and print model.
5. Runway model.
6. Runway model.
7. Victoria Secret model.
8. Jennifer Hawkins, former Miss World (Australia).
9. Tyra Banks, from America's Next Top Model & The Trya Show - former VS model.
10. Beyonce Knowles, singer-come-actress.
11. Kate Winslet, actress.
12. Plus-size model.
13. Kirsty Alley, actress.
14. Crystal Renn, well-known plus-size model.
15. Came up when I googled "plus-size model"
16. Jennifer Hudson, singer from American Idol & Actress
17. From "Big Babes"
18. Monique. I think she has a talk show?

In terms of health...well, I'm no doctor or anything, but in terms of appeal...they're all on the way-too-damn-skinny side for my liking. I can't imagine how any of them could be called "fat," but that's just me.

In terms of health...well, I'm no doctor or anything, but in terms of appeal...they're all on the way-too-damn-skinny side for my liking. I can't imagine how any of them could be called "fat," but that's just me.

Kirsty Alley, even after losing weight, is still morbidly obese.

Kirsty Alley, even after losing weight, is still morbidly obese.

Hmmm...let's agree to disagree.

1-8 are all gorgeous, ideal in my opinion.

9,10,11 are acceptable, but not as sexy as the preceding 8.

The rest could certainly stand to lose some weight.

You have read my mind; I couldn't agree more. My favorites would be numbers 3 and 5.

About the health aspect, it's impossible to tell based on these pictures whether any of these women are healthy or not. Women can be naturally that thin or fat, and it would take some getting to know their habits to make a decision.

I think no 9 is about right, which happily is also about my size / build. I used to be more like no 5, which was a lot easier for buying clothes, but less attractive in my opinion and I'm much happier with my curves.

hooray for curves! and i agree on #9... healthy, curvy, but slim.


Hi! I haven't seen you around for a while :)


me either! good to see you Kanabia :) :)

Kirsty Alley, even after losing weight, is still morbidly obese.

She's heavy, but seriously - morbidly obese? None of the women pictured in the OP would meet that descriptor.

Morbidly obese is more like:

http://www.beyond.com.au/images/catalogue/beyond%20big.jpg

She isn't "slim and in reasonable shape"... She has a six-pack and is very very thin. Maybe she trains as an athlete. Maybe she's naturally muscular with a fast metabolism. Maybe she's healthy... but you can't help the resemblence...

I couldn't bring myself to google "13 year old boy", but...
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/beachboy239.jpg
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/know_your_right/_keira-knightley-bikini-1-01.jpg
Umm... so they both have six packs, but she's got tits. They're both attractive and really, if my stomach looked like Kiera Knightly's I'd be rather happy... well, I don't know that I want that well defined a six pack, but a little bit more definition would be nice... however, you can see my ribs better than hers and her boobs look like they might be bigger than mine. So by your standards I must look like a 13 year old boy too, despite my small tummy. Thanks.

Again, why does everyone who uplifts overweight women has to go on like skinny women are hideous? Can't you people just say that everyone is beautiful in his or her own way or some shit? Like seriously, you can't make fat chicks feel better without making skinny chicks feel worse?

Not at all sure where the lines are best drawn here. I'm not convinced they're linear - 5 looks as scary as 1 and 2, 3 looks relatively healthy despite being rather thin, and I'm not sure at all on 4.

6 just scares me with height as much as anything else, but again too skinny.

I'd put 7-11 as the best-looking, probably. Multiple pictures of Kate Winslet (11) at all the different weights she's been would probably be mildly interesting to compare...

12 might just need a little more muscle and a little less fat. 13 I'm really not sure about in the slightest. I think the rest probably are too big except 16.

I would say that 3 and 16 would be good role models for those not disposed towards a 'normal' size (choose one as appropriate).

And for what it's worth, I consider myself to have at least a degree of asexuality...

Kirsty Alley, even after losing weight, is still morbidly obese.

No. Not even close. In fact, she might be the best-looking body in this picset.

7-9 are about right for me. Tyra is in there and always had a soft spot for her. I mean hard spot. ;)

[All replies from this account will be from Amor Pulchritudo (who used to be Knowyourright)]

*Hasn't read thread*

What happened to Knowyourright?

*Hasn't read thread*

What happened to Knowyourright?
The future Mrs. Rotovia is notoriously bad at maintaining her accounts.

The future Mrs. Rotovia is notoriously bad at maintaining her accounts.

Indeed... But not making a new one? I smell a trouble brewing on the horizon... :eek:

She isn't "slim and in reasonable shape"... She has a six-pack and is very very thin. Maybe she trains as an athlete. Maybe she's naturally muscular with a fast metabolism. Maybe she's healthy... but you can't help the resemblence...I very strongly doubt she's an athlete, or she'd be more muscular. Whether she's very very thin or slim is completely subjective and at most a silly attempt at implying an obviously fit woman has some sort of health problem.

And as for that guy... You could say exactly the same of any comparable man/woman.Again, why does everyone who uplifts overweight women has to go on like skinny women are hideous?They're probably trying to compensate for something.

Indeed... But not making a new one? I smell a trouble brewing on the horizon... :eek:

Laziness is a virtue.

Again, why does everyone who uplifts overweight women has to go on like skinny women are hideous? Can't you people just say that everyone is beautiful in his or her own way or some shit? Like seriously, you can't make fat chicks feel better without making skinny chicks feel worse?

Okay, here's the breakdown on that:

1: There are as many, if not moreso males (and females) who denigrate larger women. It's tit-for-tat. It's retaliation. Evening the score. It's in our blood.

2: Because Mass Media is also in on putting down "fat" chicks. Another instance of trying to balance the scale socially.

3: Because if we did'nt say funny (insulting) stuff every once in a while, it would get really fucking boring, what with all the "everyone's beautiful in their own way" stuff.

All-in-all, the correct response to this scenario is for both sides to grow a thicker skin (pun intended.)

Okay, here's the breakdown on that:

1: There are as many, if not moreso males (and females) who denigrate larger women. It's tit-for-tat. It's retaliation. Evening the score. It's in our blood.

2: Because Mass Media is also in on putting down "fat" chicks. Another instance of trying to balance the scale socially.

3: Because if we did'nt say funny (insulting) stuff every once in a while, it would get really fucking boring, what with all the "everyone's beautiful in their own way" stuff.

All-in-all, the correct response to this scenario is for both sides to grow a thicker skin (pun intended.)
1. Two wrongs make a right now?
2. Mass media also puts down skinny chicks, claiming they have eating disorders left and right.
3. Well, the thing is that here, several posters are like "oh yes, the woman who is quite large (18) is probably fine, but #1 is clearly hideously thin, as is everyone whose bones can be seen to protrude a little.

1. Two wrongs make a right now?
I don't see it in terms of "wrong" or "right". I see it as an insult, followed either by dismissal or reaction. Insecure people tend to react. If you can't handle stuff like this, don't be places where it happens.


2. Mass media also puts down skinny chicks, claiming they have eating disorders left and right.
Only recently has Mass Media begun to tone down their "Skinny Love" and start talking seriously about dangerously underweight folks. Mostly, its' just a guilty social conscience forcing them to clean up the mess they created in the first place with all their "Skinny Love".


3. Well, the thing is that here, several posters are like "oh yes, the woman who is quite large (18) is probably fine, but #1 is clearly hideously thin, as is everyone whose bones can be seen to protrude a little.
Hardly any compared to all the posters pointing out how "unhealthy" all those "fat" women must be. Do not worry, the status quo remains. Try not taking percieved insults so harshly, it just makes you look insecure.

I don't see it in terms of "wrong" or "right". I see it as an insult, followed either by dismissal or reaction. Insecure people tend to react. If you can't handle stuff like this, don't be places where it happens.
I can handle it, it's just really annoying to have 10 posters go on about how someone who has a nice body is "skeletor" and "needs to eat some pie" interspersed with remarks about how not being overweight means that a girl looks like a 13 year old boy. Especially when one or two of them are really condescending about it and chiding everyone who finds the skinny girls attractive, saying that there must be something wrong with them for feeling that way.

And I'm not insecure, I like my body. I just don't like to hear ignorant people going on saying things about it. I mean, if you sat about making false interpretations of QM, you'd hear me bitching, but that doesn't mean I'm insecure about my understanding of QM.

Only recently has Mass Media begun to tone down their "Skinny Love" and start talking seriously about dangerously underweight folks. Mostly, its' just a guilty social conscience forcing them to clean up the mess they created in the first place with all their "Skinny Love".
No, this isn't a toned down skinny love, this is flat out calling healthy looking women anorexic.

Hardly any compared to all the posters pointing out how "unhealthy" all those "fat" women must be. Do not worry, the status quo remains. Try not taking percieved insults so harshly, it just makes you look insecure.
I'm not taking them personally, I'm just saying that you know, it's not just celebrities who have visible collar bones or ribs, some of us have bones that are bigger than the stuff on top of them because that's how we're built. I mean, no one would call me anorexic, I have a bit of a tummy, but my collar bones, hip bones and ribs are visible, depending on how I stand you could count my ribs partway up... Hell, my wrists are bony as hell too.
People are built differently and to suggest that women who can see their bones through their skin need to seek help no matter how healthy their eating and exercise habits are is stupid and really, if you want to defend fat women, then don't go insulting skinny women in the process is all. Like, fuck, is it so hard to say "She looks hawt" without also adding "And she looks like she needs a cheesburger"?

I can handle it, it's just really annoying to have 10 posters go on about how someone who has a nice body is "skeletor" and "needs to eat some pie" interspersed with remarks about how not being overweight means that a girl looks like a 13 year old boy.
Obviously you don't look like a 13-year-old boy, so why bother responding? Pre-packaged insults like that are practically designed to reel you in, and you bit the line like a fish.


Especially when one or two of them are really condescending about it and chiding everyone who finds the skinny girls attractive, saying that there must be something wrong with them for feeling that way.
And yet you say nothing of people who say the same of fat women...Funny, that. Some people just enjoy entering verbal combat supporting their 'side' in a 'fight'. It should'nt surprise anyone.


And I'm not insecure, I like my body. I just don't like to hear ignorant people going on saying things about it. I mean, if you sat about making false interpretations of QM, you'd hear me bitching, but that doesn't mean I'm insecure about my understanding of QM.
You're not going to change anyones' mind on an internet forum. People can only change their own minds. Well, most people.


No, this isn't a toned down skinny love, this is flat out calling healthy looking women anorexic.
"Healthy looking" is such a subjective term it holds no real meaning. In conversations such as this, "unhealthy looking" is simply a nice way of saying "ugly". Would you rather they say that?


I'm not taking them personally, I'm just saying that you know, it's not just celebrities who have visible collar bones or ribs, some of us have bones that are bigger than the stuff on top of them because that's how we're built. I mean, no one would call me anorexic, I have a bit of a tummy, but my collar bones, hip bones and ribs are visible, depending on how I stand you could count my ribs partway up... Hell, my wrists are bony as hell too.
People are built differently and to suggest that women who can see their bones through their skin need to seek help no matter how healthy their eating and exercise habits are is stupid

Oh, gee, no fucking shit?! REALLY?! I had no idea. Thank you kind stranger, your contribution really helped me figure out yet another important facet of the universe...


and really, if you want to defend fat women, then don't go insulting skinny women in the process is all. Like, fuck, is it so hard to say "She looks hawt" without also adding "And she looks like she needs a cheesburger"?

If you were'nt insecure, why would you feel insulted? We're a bunch of retards on a fucking internet forum talking about wether we'd bone skeletor or jabba. You really think people care all that much for your objections when all we're looking for is a good time? Personally, i'd never bone a skinny chick unless she actively pursued me, but I like skinny men for some reason. Call me crazy, but I just prefer my women fat.

All these 'insults' riling you up are just sprinkles on top of the crapcake that is any internet thread. In the end, they mean nothing.

Try not taking percieved insults so harshly, it just makes you look insecure.

It's not just percieved. I've been in a class before and a teacher at first didn't believe that my BMI was lower than 18 and, after he saw that I hadn't made a mistake on the calculator, pretty much said in front of anyone that my risk of death is greater because that means I'm anorexic. I don't care so much about it when people online say stuff like that, because I know that I'm at a healthy weight, since my doctor has said that I'm fine but it'd be good to gain a bit of weight, but that was in person and it hurt.

If you were'nt insecure, why would you feel insulted? We're a bunch of retards on a fucking internet forum talking about wether we'd bone skeletor or jabba. You really think people care all that much for your objections when all we're looking for is a good time? Personally, i'd never bone a skinny chick unless she actively pursued me, but I like skinny men for some reason. Call me crazy, but I just prefer my women fat.

All these 'insults' riling you up are just sprinkles on top of the crapcake that is any internet thread. In the end, they mean nothing.
I'm not at all riled up. And I'm not insulted. I just wonder if it's too much to ask that people not be douchebags to each other.

It's not just percieved. I've been in a class before and a teacher at first didn't believe that my BMI was lower than 18 and, after he saw that I hadn't made a mistake on the calculator, pretty much said in front of anyone that my risk of death is greater because that means I'm anorexic. I don't care so much about it when people online say stuff like that, because I know that I'm at a healthy weight, since my doctor has said that I'm fine but it'd be good to gain a bit of weight, but that was in person and it hurt.

There's a difference. He's a teacher talking to a student. Very unprofessional.

I'm not at all riled up. And I'm not insulted.
Well I guess it just seems like that.


I just wonder if it's too much to ask that people not be douchebags to each other.

It is.

Well I guess it just seems like that.
Telling someone they're wrong doesn't mean that you're insulted by what they say.

It is.
It shouldn't be.

I'm not at all riled up. And I'm not insulted. I just wonder if it's too much to ask that people not be douchebags to each other.

It's called being hypocritical. It seems to be a trait very common among many specimens Homo sapiens, leading to the subspecies of Homo sapiens hypocriticus. In turn, a common trait among this subspecies is douchebaggery. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they vastly outnumber the modern day subspecies of Homo sapiens rationalitus. In the end, it is believed that sapiens hypocriticus will either out compete, or breed out, sapiens rationalitus.

Telling someone they're wrong doesn't mean that you're insulted by what they say.
It's pretty hard to make that definition when the person responding has a horse in the race (ie, you're skinny and defending against remarks against skinny people).


It shouldn't be.

*shrug* Oh well...

It's pretty hard to make that definition when the person responding has a horse in the race (ie, you're skinny and defending against remarks against skinny people).

You'll have a point if Dakini made snide remarks about fat people.

If you could show evidence of this, your point is proven.

Just being fair.

There's a difference. He's a teacher talking to a student. Very unprofessional.

I know that there's a difference.

You'll have a point if Dakini made snide remarks about fat people.

If you could show evidence of this, your point is proven.

Just being fair.

Actually it does'nt matter. We percieve her as being insecure because she's skinny, and attacking skinny-people-attackers. Just like fat people when we say "Hey, i'm not fat, i'm just big-boned!".

Actually it does'nt matter. We percieve her as being insecure because she's skinny, and attacking skinny-people-attackers. Just like fat people when we say "Hey, i'm not fat, i'm just big-boned!".

:rolleyes:

That's all I have to say to that. There really is nothing else that can sum up the pure idiocy of what you just said.

Actually it does'nt matter. We percieve her as being insecure because she's skinny, and attacking skinny-people-attackers. Just like fat people when we say "Hey, i'm not fat, i'm just big-boned!".
As far as I can see, you're the only one claiming I'm insecure.

As far as I can see, you're the only one claiming I'm insecure.

Seems to me like the person is making the jump of:

"Hey, you don't want other people to make fun of fat people, but you get to make fun of skinny people."

To:

"Hey, I can make fun of fat people, but you can't make fun of skinny people."

I am astounded at the amount of men who are attracted to figures such as 1 & 2. It is the instinct of animals (and it should be the same with humans) to further their species. A suitable woman (or to put it bluntly, "mate") needs to be healthy in order to produce a healthy offspring. Women with a very low weight often suffer from amenorrhea, and those with very large weights can be prone to PCOS, menstrual problems and even infertility. Also, a woman should ideally have hips wide enough to withstand pregnancy. While weight isn't a perfect indicator of health, it's the best we have.

Looking at it objectively, and excluding any knowledge of medical history and BMI (which is often incorrect), the ideal physical specimens are probably those between [EDIT: or even 5/6/7 - they are attractive, but slender] 8 and perhaps 14-15. I suppose, that in times of famine, those with slower metabolisms and those predisposed to gaining more weight, such as 16 could even be considered "healthy" in terms of producing offspring, because they would be able to survive, whereas 1-5 could potentially fall to starvation.

So basically, in essence, sex appeal and the concept of health go hand-in-hand. "I wouldn't" probably means they're either much too thin or much too large, and "I would" should place them in the "healthy" category.

The flaw in today's society is that the media has turned natural instinct upside-down. At least I hope we can blame the media. After all, what is natural, normal or even sane about being attracted to an emaciated frame?
while I won't argue with the general thrust of your argument, I do wonder as to where this 'thin is beautiful' idea comes from.

I find it ironic that the (usually) more extreme feminists decry about how the male media is forcing the 'thin is beautiful' idea onto young women when if anyone bothered to check, it seems to be more a female media thing.
Compare the females in, say, Cosmopolitan (a mag run by women for women) and Penthouse or Hustler or any of those skin mags run by men for men.

Ignoring the objectification inherrent in skud mags, they are better in some ways than woman's magazines. At least they don't force the 'you can never be too thin' concept on you.
You'd be damn unlucky to find a seriously underweight woman (or indeed slightly underweight) in them. In Cosmo and the like, the opposite's true. Pretty much the only time a healthy weighted woman is in there is when they're minutely assessing, criticising and destroying that woman's physical appearance.
I saw a classic of this the other day: Two woman mags had Posh Spice on their covers, 1 decrying how skinny and obsessed she is with her looks and how this could lead to serious problems; The other going on and on about how dreadful her many cosmetic surgeries have made her look.


Which leads to the inevitable question: If scrut mags reflect the female ideal that the majority of men would like to nail, then where is the 'thin is beautiful' idea coming from?

me either! good to see you Kanabia :) :)

:)

1-5 are quite skinny.
6-10 are healthy
11-13 are a little chubby
14-18 are fat.

All of them are beautiful women though. I prefer pictures 6-10 becuase they have healthy looking bodies.

My body type is 6-8

The only picture that made me go "uggghhh.... it burns" was number 1. Although in all fairness, that could be partially because the angle of the photo makes her look like a bobble-head. 2-6 tend to be a bit thin for my tastes, with the possible exception of 3. I'm not overly attracted to delicate looking, and the musculature of Knightly makes her look less delicate even if she is a bit on the thin side. 17 and 18 are a bit larger than I'd generally prefer, but I like them better than 1-2 and 4-6. I find Beyonce Knowles (10), number 15, and Kate Winslet (11) the most attractive. But I really like a marked curve from waist out to hips, especially when it includes, uhm, "back."

You'll have a point if Dakini made snide remarks about fat people.

If you could show evidence of this, your point is proven.

Just being fair.

I don't think that all fat people are ugly, but generally, people who are definitely overweight don't look quite as good as people who are healthy. I also think that it should be relatively easy to lose excess weight, but people are lazy bastards.

(Quote from the fat people are ugly thread)

Thin people just are, but fat people are lazy eh?

It's the belief that you can somehow work yourself thin, with starvation diets, crazy exersise routines, personal trainers and plastic surgery that leads so many people to be utterly miserable with their bodies. Paradoxically, that's why you have the thin = anorexic idea: any newsagent has a pile of magazines just about how to slim, a pile of "women's" magazines about how to get a bikini body, or a christmas frock body or whatever, and another pile of magazines about celebrity tricks to stay thin, or which celebtrity put a pound on. Being thin is an obsession and a full time job for a lot of people, not to mention a fairly solid industry, and its easy to view thin people as having simply gone too far with it - easier to accept than the idea that they didn't have to work at it at all. It seems far more acceptable to be thin than to be fat, despite a couple of comments in this thread - at least nobody has said "I don't like thin girls but I wonder what it would be like to bone one" as in the fat thread.

As far as I can see, you're the only one claiming I'm insecure.

*tosses in hat* You totally sounded insecure to me.

Thin people just are, but fat people are lazy eh?
I was thinking along the lines of really fat people (i.e. bigger than the biggest woman in this thread). There's also more than just thin and fat, there's a nice range in between. I also don't see how this is the same as saying that bigger people are universally disgusting and someone must have something wrong with them if they consider overweight women attractive or that evolution dictates that they must despise that body type or saying that they look like walruses or some shit.

It's the belief that you can somehow work yourself thin, with starvation diets, crazy exersise routines, personal trainers and plastic surgery that leads so many people to be utterly miserable with their bodies.
It doesn't change the fact that you don't reach 350+lbs with a healthy diet and exercise routine. I know that some people can't work out until they're thin, but they can work out and eat sensibly until they're healthy.

Paradoxically, that's why you have the thin = anorexic idea: any newsagent has a pile of magazines just about how to slim, a pile of "women's" magazines about how to get a bikini body, or a christmas frock body or whatever, and another pile of magazines about celebrity tricks to stay thin, or which celebtrity put a pound on. Being thin is an obsession and a full time job for a lot of people, not to mention a fairly solid industry, and its easy to view thin people as having simply gone too far with it - easier to accept than the idea that they didn't have to work at it at all.
Ok, and I know lots of people who are naturally thin and couldn't gain a pound if they tried.

It seems far more acceptable to be thin than to be fat, despite a couple of comments in this thread - at least nobody has said "I don't like thin girls but I wonder what it would be like to bone one" as in the fat thread.
No, I think that my problem is more with the fact that there are people lashing out at one standard because it's considered good instead of just bolstering their own case. And not only that, people are insulting features that are common to me and I'm not even that thin. I'm pretty sure my BMI is like 20 or 21 or something like this... so to be saying that everyone who has bones sticking out or visible ribs is excessively thin is ridiculous. It's basically saying "You suck unless you have extra weight".

Umm... so they both have six packs, but she's got tits. They're both attractive and really, if my stomach looked like Kiera Knightly's I'd be rather happy... well, I don't know that I want that well defined a six pack, but a little bit more definition would be nice... however, you can see my ribs better than hers and her boobs look like they might be bigger than mine. So by your standards I must look like a 13 year old boy too, despite my small tummy. Thanks.

Again, why does everyone who uplifts overweight women has to go on like skinny women are hideous? Can't you people just say that everyone is beautiful in his or her own way or some shit? Like seriously, you can't make fat chicks feel better without making skinny chicks feel worse?

In that picture, to me, she looks a little like a 13 year old boy. Her body is not stereotypically femminine.

I don't uplift overweight women. I think 18 is too large to be healthy, and should seek dietry help. But in the same sense, I think 1 is too thin to be healthy, and should seek dietry help.

Every single woman I posted I consider "beautiful" in some way. I also am of the belief that everyone has something beautiful about them. However, when it comes to health (and arguably, sex appeal), there are certain "lines" that can be drawn.

1. Two wrongs make a right now?
2. Mass media also puts down skinny chicks, claiming they have eating disorders left and right.
3. Well, the thing is that here, several posters are like "oh yes, the woman who is quite large (18) is probably fine, but #1 is clearly hideously thin, as is everyone whose bones can be seen to protrude a little.

She isn't "fine". While she is still gorgeous in her own way, she is overweight, and perhaps obese, making her unhealthy. Some people are sensitive and say "larger". In the same token, many people have had the audacity to say things along the lines of "yo fat bitch yo muffin top" or call her "bovine".

Hardly any compared to all the posters pointing out how "unhealthy" all those "fat" women must be. Do not worry, the status quo remains. Try not taking percieved insults so harshly, it just makes you look insecure.

Agreed.

while I won't argue with the general thrust of your argument, I do wonder as to where this 'thin is beautiful' idea comes from.

I find it ironic that the (usually) more extreme feminists decry about how the male media is forcing the 'thin is beautiful' idea onto young women when if anyone bothered to check, it seems to be more a female media thing.
Compare the females in, say, Cosmopolitan (a mag run by women for women) and Penthouse or Hustler or any of those skin mags run by men for men.

Ignoring the objectification inherrent in skud mags, they are better in some ways than woman's magazines. At least they don't force the 'you can never be too thin' concept on you.
You'd be damn unlucky to find a seriously underweight woman (or indeed slightly underweight) in them. In Cosmo and the like, the opposite's true. Pretty much the only time a healthy weighted woman is in there is when they're minutely assessing, criticising and destroying that woman's physical appearance.
I saw a classic of this the other day: Two woman mags had Posh Spice on their covers, 1 decrying how skinny and obsessed she is with her looks and how this could lead to serious problems; The other going on and on about how dreadful her many cosmetic surgeries have made her look.


Which leads to the inevitable question: If scrut mags reflect the female ideal that the majority of men would like to nail, then where is the 'thin is beautiful' idea coming from?

Where have you been for the last 3 or 4 years?

I find it hard to believe that many people blame the male entertainment based media for the increasing numbers of dieters and eating disordered individuals. It is obvious that the obsession is much more female-based. However, I also find it hard to believe that the women pictured in men's magazines are neccisarily "normal". While I am yet to encounter an emaciated woman in a men's magazine, there is still an emphasis on slender bodies (albeit with large breasts). And do these magazines truly represent the ideal fuck? Or is this image being imposed upon men, and they're just growing to accept & seek it? If you were able to remove the affect of the media, I'm sure that the emaciated women in Vogue wouldn't be representative of the ideal that women have for themselves!

I've read thousands of articles, argued against hundreds of people, and written essays upon essays about the media-image connection, and yet I am constantly finding new things that not neccisarily change my mind, but open it a little.

There has always been an obsession about image, but the extent of the current "thin is beautiful" trend boggles the mind. While women were risking their health by wearing corsets in the not-so-distant past, it is astounding (and frightening) that although women KNOW that starving your body is bad for you, we continue to do it for the sake of image. Girls and women literally DIE to be thin...

It's a hard topic... and it's very confusing...

Because if those magazines do represent what guys want, why the hell do so many seem to think 1 is healthy?

[/end confusion]

You make sense, I will admit, but there is so much more.
(Quote from the fat people are ugly thread)

Thin people just are, but fat people are lazy eh?

It's the belief that you can somehow work yourself thin, with starvation diets, crazy exersise routines, personal trainers and plastic surgery that leads so many people to be utterly miserable with their bodies. Paradoxically, that's why you have the thin = anorexic idea: any newsagent has a pile of magazines just about how to slim, a pile of "women's" magazines about how to get a bikini body, or a christmas frock body or whatever, and another pile of magazines about celebrity tricks to stay thin, or which celebtrity put a pound on. Being thin is an obsession and a full time job for a lot of people, not to mention a fairly solid industry, and its easy to view thin people as having simply gone too far with it - easier to accept than the idea that they didn't have to work at it at all. It seems far more acceptable to be thin than to be fat, despite a couple of comments in this thread - at least nobody has said "I don't like thin girls but I wonder what it would be like to bone one" as in the fat thread.

Not only was Daniki (was it Daniki?) being hypocritical, it's amazing that one could think it's a matter of laziness. The most common misconception is that unhealthily overweight (or even the likes of the beautiful and HEALTHY australian size 14 or US size 10 Kate Winslet) are the size they are because they're lazy. Firstly, some people are just bigger. Secondly, and more importantly, health reasons, specifically eating disorders cause people to become overweight.

EDs aren't just for anorexics...

In that picture, to me, she looks a little like a 13 year old boy. Her body is not stereotypically femminine.
That doesn't mean that a woman looks like a 13 year old boy. And last I knew, this was the 21st century, when gender stereotypes can fuck themselves.

I don't uplift overweight women. I think 18 is too large to be healthy, and should seek dietry help. But in the same sense, I think 1 is too thin to be healthy, and should seek dietry help.
Wait... so how does this comment about 18 mesh with your "some women are just large" comment further down? Basically, you think that this woman should eat healthy and get on the treadmill every now and then, but I'm a hypocrite if I would say the same? Utter garbage.
And 1 is not necessarily too thin, I know people who look like that and can't gain weight, their doctors have checked them out and found no problems whatsoever.

Every single woman I posted I consider "beautiful" in some way. I also am of the belief that everyone has something beautiful about them. However, when it comes to health (and arguably, sex appeal), there are certain "lines" that can be drawn.
Yeah, definitely, anyone whose bones you can see is too thin, exactly. :rolleyes:

She isn't "fine". While she is still gorgeous in her own way, she is overweight, and perhaps obese, making her unhealthy. Some people are sensitive and say "larger". In the same token, many people have had the audacity to say things along the lines of "yo fat bitch yo muffin top" or call her "bovine".
Umm... ok? I think that she's probably fine, yes, she's heavy but I don't think she looks obese. And maybe she could use to lose a few pounds, but given that I'm not a medical expert I really don't know.

Because if those magazines do represent what guys want, why the hell do so many seem to think 1 is healthy?
Because she might be?

Not only was Daniki (was it Daniki?) being hypocritical, it's amazing that one could think it's a matter of laziness.
Being really overweight is a matter of a lack of exercise and a poor diet. It's not necessarily laziness, it could be that one's job prevents one from getting any exercise or eating properly, but it is something that can be prevented.

Oh, and also, I wasn't calling fat people lazy bastards, I said that people were lazy bastards, by the way, which is why fad diets are popular and healthy diets combined with exercise aren't, even among people who are a healthy weight.

The most common misconception is that unhealthily overweight (or even the likes of the beautiful and HEALTHY australian size 14 or US size 10 Kate Winslet) are the size they are because they're lazy. Firstly, some people are just bigger. Secondly, and more importantly, health reasons, specifically eating disorders cause people to become overweight.
And some people lead sedentary lifestyles that prevent them from being healthy, yes... I wasn't talking about all slightly overweight people, I was talking about people who are bigger than #18 so don't give me this garbage about how I'm talking shit about people who are slightly overweight, I don't care, slightly overweight is fine. If you're at the point where you have to book two airplane seats, you have a problem, but that's about it as far as I care.

EDs aren't just for anorexics...
And not all women who "look" anorexic are anorexic, just like not all larger people have eating disorders.

And not all women who "look" anorexic are anorexic,

You just have to stop being lazy and eat more pies. Seriously, how hard can it be?

You just have to stop being lazy and eat more pies. Seriously, how hard can it be?
I'd rather cake and ice cream.


Or whipped cream... but usually that leads to non-lazy activities... ;)

You just have to stop being lazy and eat more pies. Seriously, how hard can it be?

I eat about as much as I can every day, which usually totals about 1600 or so calories. I can't eat when I'm not hungry, and that's all I'm hungry for. I don't understand how people can eat more than what they're hungry for, though I definitely understand that most people are hungry for more than me.

My dad is obese, and it makes me sad because I know he's trying. He had to buy two airline seats when we flew to Michigan. He eats a salad for lunch every day, and I think he just removed the cheese so it wouldn't be as many calories. He also happens to be handicapped (he can walk but not very far, and it's painful for him. He has to wear a knee brace and take plenty of pain medicine for his back and knees). That makes exercise more difficult for him, but I know that he goes to the gym sometimes. I'm pretty sure that he was overweight as a child, too, though definitely not as much, and he says that his mother was the type who told him that he should clear his plate and always have seconds. As a result he's taught us that it's ok to not eat everything on the plate, just eat what you're hungry for and it's ok to stop eating once you're full.

I eat about as much as I can every day, which usually totals about 1600 or so calories. I can't eat when I'm not hungry, and that's all I'm hungry for. I don't understand how people can eat more than what they're hungry for, though I definitely understand that most people are hungry for more than me.

I think it's partly habit... If you get used to eating more you can (and feel hungry when you don't), whilst after a while of not eating much you get used to it.

My dad is obese, and it makes me sad because I know he's trying. He had to buy two airline seats when we flew to Michigan. He eats a salad for lunch every day, and I think he just removed the cheese so it wouldn't be as many calories. He also happens to be handicapped (he can walk but not very far, and it's painful for him. He has to wear a knee brace and take plenty of pain medicine for his back and knees). That makes exercise more difficult for him, but I know that he goes to the gym sometimes. I'm pretty sure that he was overweight as a child, too, though definitely not as much, and he says that his mother was the type who told him that he should clear his plate and always have seconds. As a result he's taught us that it's ok to not eat everything on the plate, just eat what you're hungry for and it's ok to stop eating once you're full.

Yeah, if you can't/don't exercise it's very hard not to gain weight. :(
And the "clearing your plate" thing is probably one thing that defines how much you're going to eat; we were always told to eat what we were given/had taken, too, so then it becomes habit to always do that, and you're used to eating that much, even if it's too much.

I think it's partly habit... If you get used to eating more you can (and feel hungry when you don't), whilst after a while of not eating much you get used to it.

I already eat three meals and at least one snack every day. I don't see how I can really add to that.


Yeah, if you can't/don't exercise it's very hard not to gain weight. :(
And the "clearing your plate" thing is probably one thing that defines how much you're going to eat; we were always told to eat what we were given/had taken, too, so then it becomes habit to always do that, and you're used to eating that much, even if it's too much.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Usually once I'm full I either try to wrap whatever I was eating up and save it or throw it away if it's just a little bit or not very good or something, or if I know that no one else is interested in eating it and I don't want to eat it later.

I eat about as much as I can every day, which usually totals about 1600 or so calories. I can't eat when I'm not hungry, and that's all I'm hungry for. I don't understand how people can eat more than what they're hungry for, though I definitely understand that most people are hungry for more than me.


interesting... i'm overweight (probably about 50lbs) and when i get hungry i get irritable, ratty, angry and i lose concentration in a big way. and that's for the first signs of hunger.

i also very much enjoy the taste and flavour of food, and will keep eating in order to enjoy the taste even after i've had enough. especially rich things... not cakes and stuff but rich lasagne, etc. but i am now trying to cut back to "when i'm full" (which tends to be a helping more than most people, it seems :p)

i also have some psychological issues about food... when i was at university and suffering from clinical depression, eating and tasting food was, to me, the only pleasure i had left. when you have no seratonin in your brain and your neurochemistry has lost the ability to make you feel joy or anything positive, eating food - and the endorphins therein - was really important to me. its been hard to do away with that way of thinking.

some days i'd rather be fat and die young rather than give up the foods i love. some other days i hate the way i look and how unfit i am, and want to do anything to change it. sadly, for the most part, the food wins.

#1 & 2 are dangerously thin, IMHO.

some days i'd rather be fat and die young rather than give up the foods i love. some other days i hate the way i look and how unfit i am, and want to do anything to change it. sadly, for the most part, the food wins.
"It's better to die at 40 having enjoyed all the food I like,
Than die at 100 eating nothing but leaves in that lifetime."

and

"Hey, I'm getting fat!" *starves self*

"It's better to die at 40 having enjoyed all the food I like,
Than die at 100 eating nothing but leaves in that lifetime."

and

"Hey, I'm getting fat!" *starves self*

very accurate... apart from the starving bit... that only usually lasts at most a day :D

very accurate... apart from the starving bit... that only usually lasts at most a day :D

oh, it's like 30 minutes for me, then I get all depressed and eat again anyway.

very accurate... apart from the starving bit... that only usually lasts at most a day :D
Mine lasts for a few seconds at least. Then I'll blame Dad for giving me bad genes; or turn green with envy when I see a friend of mine who's more voracious than I am and yet is very thin.

I already eat three meals and at least one snack every day. I don't see how I can really add to that.

Once you get used to bigger portions you tend to eat them even when you don't need them.

I have, in the past, eaten far more than 1,600 calories in a single portion - never mind across three meals and a snack...

Once you get used to bigger portions you tend to eat them even when you don't need them.

I have, in the past, eaten far more than 1,600 calories in a single portion - never mind across three meals and a snack...

I guess that makes sense, but I don't think I could do that.

Umm... so they both have six packs, but she's got tits.

It could be the unflattering bathing suit, but, in that picture, her boobs look pretty much nonexistant.

There's skinny and then there's skinny. Keira Knightly is always skinny - and usually very attractive. However, in my opinion, she is too skinny in that picture. She doesn't look healthy to me. I don't know why you find it so insulting for someone to point that out. If she looks great to you, fine! That's your opinion.

It could be the unflattering bathing suit, but, in that picture, her boobs look pretty much nonexistant.

There's skinny and then there's skinny. Keira Knightly is always skinny - and usually very attractive. However, in my opinion, she is too skinny in that picture. She doesn't look healthy to me. I don't know why you find it so insulting for someone to point that out. If she looks great to you, fine! That's your opinion.
Her boobs don't look non-existant... they look about the same size as mine.

And she looks perfectly healthy in that picture. I don't understand why she looks too thin to be healthy, but I doubt that anyone would say the guy she was compared to in one post would be called too thin to be healthy when she's definitely got a higher body fat % than he does.

Oh, and that bathing suit definitely isn't flattering on her... that doesn't mean that her body isn't nice.

Her boobs don't look non-existant... they look about the same size as mine.

You can't even tell that there is a breast on the left side. On the right, the only reason you can see it is that her bathing suit has shifted. Like I said, it's probably at least partially a problem with the rather unflattering bathing suit.

And she looks perfectly healthy in that picture.

To you, perhaps. To me, she doesn't.

I don't understand why she looks too thin to be healthy, but I doubt that anyone would say the guy she was compared to in one post would be called too thin to be healthy when she's definitely got a higher body fat % than he does.

Based on the two pictures, I would say it doesn't look like that at all.

Oh, and that bathing suit definitely isn't flattering on her... that doesn't mean that her body isn't nice.

Clothing makes a big difference in how someone looks. I think her body looks much, much better in this picture:

http://thebosh.com/upload/2007/05/14/keira_knightley_pirates_actress.jpg

Part of it is likely the difference in clothing. But I also think she probably has a little more (not much) weight on her here as well. My husband agrees that Knightley looks better at a slightly higher weight. Does that make us evil people? Of course not. We simply have our own preferences, as you have yours.

Hell, you flat-out told me that you find at least two of my closest friends to be too fat in the other thread. We're just talking about an actress here. Why should you be so bothered if I say I think she's a little to skinny in a particular picture?

You can't even tell that there is a breast on the left side. On the right, the only reason you can see it is that her bathing suit has shifted. Like I said, it's probably at least partially a problem with the rather unflattering bathing suit.
I'm pretty sure it is the bathing suit.

Based on the two pictures, I would say it doesn't look like that at all.
I wouldn't guess that the guy in the picture had much of any body fat, she at least has boobs.

Part of it is likely the difference in clothing. But I also think she probably has a little more (not much) weight on her here as well. My husband agrees that Knightley looks better at a slightly higher weight. Does that make us evil people? Of course not. We simply have our own preferences, as you have yours.
She does look better in that picture, but she also looks like she might be flexing her abs in the first picture (perhaps in a response to cold water?) while here she doesn't.

Hell, you flat-out told me that you find at least two of my closest friends to be too fat in the other thread. We're just talking about an actress here. Why should you be so bothered if I say I think she's a little to skinny in a particular picture?
Well, to be fair, I think that your friends might have looked kinda fat due to the dresses more than anything, a bit higher cut on the top (and possibly more supportive bras) would have made them look better.

I wouldn't guess that the guy in the picture had much of any body fat, she at least has boobs.

Well, there is that.

She does look better in that picture, but she also looks like she might be flexing her abs in the first picture (perhaps in a response to cold water?) while here she doesn't.

Or maybe she'd been working out big time for a particular movie. Actors and actresses go though lots of weights and body types depending on what project they're currently doing.

Well, to be fair, I think that your friends might have looked kinda fat due to the dresses more than anything, a bit higher cut on the top (and possibly more supportive bras) would have made them look better.

=) Yeah, there were a couple of problems with the dresses. One had been hoping to be quite pregnant by the time the wedding came around, so she bought the dress two full sizes too big. Then she had to try and have it altered down when she wasn't pregnant yet. That, and the fact that they made it too short meant that it looked a little more frumpy on her. The other you mentioned couldn't wear a bra at all because she couldn't find a suitable one in her size (it was rather low in the back as well), so the dress was pinned a bit in hopes of keeping her a little more perky.

It is truly amazing the difference clothing can make. Although, given the differences in body types of the bridesmaids, those dresses were actually very nice - they looked at least decent on everyone. =)

Clothing makes a big difference in how someone looks. I think her body looks much, much better in this picture:

/Agrees.

Or maybe she'd been working out big time for a particular movie. Actors and actresses go though lots of weights and body types depending on what project they're currently doing.
True, but if she's been working out to look like she does in the first picture then she's probably healthy and not starving herself to death.

=) Yeah, there were a couple of problems with the dresses. One had been hoping to be quite pregnant by the time the wedding came around, so she bought the dress two full sizes too big. Then she had to try and have it altered down when she wasn't pregnant yet. That, and the fact that they made it too short meant that it looked a little more frumpy on her. The other you mentioned couldn't wear a bra at all because she couldn't find a suitable one in her size (it was rather low in the back as well), so the dress was pinned a bit in hopes of keeping her a little more perky.

It is truly amazing the difference clothing can make. Although, given the differences in body types of the bridesmaids, those dresses were actually very nice - they looked at least decent on everyone. =)
Haha. Oh my, the one girl couldn't have bought the dress closer to the wedding so she'd know if she was going to be pregnant by then? I don't know about resolving the bra situation... I don't have big boobs so if I go without nobody notices usually, or I'll get these little things that just kinda stick to me, but I'm not sure how solutions go for women with bigger boobs... although one of my mom's friend's daughters couldn't find a bra that worked with a prom dress (or they thought they had one but it ended up not working) so they took another one and modified it with duct tape to make it work...

Once you get used to bigger portions you tend to eat them even when you don't need them.

I have, in the past, eaten far more than 1,600 calories in a single portion - never mind across three meals and a snack...

Jesus, I'm lucky to eat 1,600 calories in a day, there is no way I could ever eat that in a single portion(I don't eat fast food-can't stand the shit anymore).

Usually it's split into a couple small meals of a couple hundred during the day, and a big meal of about 800 calories at night(I'm a big pasta eater).

But all that in one sitting... no way.

"It's better to die at 40 having enjoyed all the food I like,
Than die at 100 eating nothing but leaves in that lifetime."

and

"Hey, I'm getting fat!" *starves self*

Bulimia.

It could be the unflattering bathing suit, but, in that picture, her boobs look pretty much nonexistant.

There's skinny and then there's skinny. Keira Knightly is always skinny - and usually very attractive. However, in my opinion, she is too skinny in that picture. She doesn't look healthy to me. I don't know why you find it so insulting for someone to point that out. If she looks great to you, fine! That's your opinion.

Agreed.

Keira is definitely beautiful. And I agree that's she's definitely thin, and sometimes (actually quite often, now that I think about it - even back before Pirates of the Carribean) looks too thin. In the photograph she doesn't look like she could fill an A cub, and I'm sorry, but that's just not what I'd call cleavage.

Bulimia.
No, bulemia is when one throws up one's food or uses laxatives and the like to get it out faster et c. What was described was a crash diet or anorexia.

Keira is definitely beautiful. And I agree that's she's definitely thin, and sometimes (actually quite often, now that I think about it - even back before Pirates of the Carribean) looks too thin. In the photograph she doesn't look like she could fill an A cub, and I'm sorry, but that's just not what I'd call cleavage.
From the boob that's peeking out a bit I'm guessing high A - low B range.

No, bulemia is when one throws up one's food or uses laxatives and the like to get it out faster et c. What was described was a crash diet or anorexia.

yes, you need the binge and the purge for it to work out right.

yes, you need the binge and the purge for it to work out right.
Or for your teeth to fall out right... whichever.

No, bulemia is when one throws up one's food or uses laxatives and the like to get it out faster et c. What was described was a crash diet or anorexia.


From the boob that's peeking out a bit I'm guessing high A - low B range.

It's spelt B-U-L-I-M-I-A. And you're incorrect. There are two subcatagories of Bulimia Nervosa: Purging and Non-purging. The purging kind is the more prevalent. Binge eating episodes followed by purging through vomitting and abusing laxatives and/or diuretics. Non-purging bulimia is where an individual, after a binge episode, will 'rid themselves' of the food through excessive exersize or fasting. Some bulimics will do all of these things. Binge/purging sometimes be a part of EDNOS - eating disorder not otherwise specified - because the person may not fit the diagnosis for bulimia nervosa.



It looks like an A to me...but I don't really care...

yes, you need the binge and the purge for it to work out right.

I suffered from Bulimia for 5 years.

I think I'd know.

It's spelt B-U-L-I-M-I-A. And you're incorrect. There are two subcatagories of Bulimia Nervosa: Purging and Non-purging. The purging kind is the more prevalent. Binge eating episodes followed by purging through vomitting and abusing laxatives and/or diuretics. Non-purging bulimia is where an individual, after a binge episode, will 'rid themselves' of the food through excessive exersize or fasting. Some bulimics will do all of these things. Binge/purging sometimes be a part of EDNOS - eating disorder not otherwise specified - because the person may not fit the diagnosis for bulimia nervosa.
Well, excuse me for not being proficient in eating disorders.

It looks like an A to me...but I don't really care...
Yeah, we all look like A cups to girls who have big knockers.

True, but if she's been working out to look like she does in the first picture then she's probably healthy and not starving herself to death.

Probably, although it could be a matter of both. I don't know that she's gone through the kind of huge weight swings that some actresses do for movies, so it's likely that she was actually in great shape.

But being healthy and looking healthy don't always match up.

Haha. Oh my, the one girl couldn't have bought the dress closer to the wedding so she'd know if she was going to be pregnant by then?

Nope. There was a deadline. =( It was a funny situation though. We really thought she'd be at least 6 months by then. Her first child, she was pregnant within 3 months of starting to try. This time, she's gone over a year now and still not pregnant. =(

I don't know about resolving the bra situation... I don't have big boobs so if I go without nobody notices usually, or I'll get these little things that just kinda stick to me, but I'm not sure how solutions go for women with bigger boobs... although one of my mom's friend's daughters couldn't find a bra that worked with a prom dress (or they thought they had one but it ended up not working) so they took another one and modified it with duct tape to make it work...

I've never been actually unable to find anything. I've got pretty big boobs, but not outside the normal ranges you find in most stores. The one thing we found that might have worked for her was on back-order, so we were out of luck there. And the pasties really didn't do much. Clothing can be difficult. *nodnod*

We didn't try duct tape, though. And we were so prepared for just about everything, you'd think we would have had duct tape on hand.

Or for your teeth to fall out right... whichever.

apparently if you puke enough it eats the enamel off your teeth and they rot and fall out anyway........or so my dentist says.

It's spelt B-U-L-I-M-I-A. And you're incorrect. There are two subcatagories of Bulimia Nervosa: Purging and Non-purging. The purging kind is the more prevalent. Binge eating episodes followed by purging through vomitting and abusing laxatives and/or diuretics. Non-purging bulimia is where an individual, after a binge episode, will 'rid themselves' of the food through excessive exersize or fasting. Some bulimics will do all of these things. Binge/purging sometimes be a part of EDNOS - eating disorder not otherwise specified - because the person may not fit the diagnosis for bulimia nervosa.



It looks like an A to me...but I don't really care...



I suffered from Bulimia for 5 years.

I think I'd know.

I didn't mean for it to be bulimia, I meant for it to work out right. I have problems as well, the purging was the comforting part, I wish I was strong enough to do it again, now I only binge, and now I am a fat cow

Probably, although it could be a matter of both. I don't know that she's gone through the kind of huge weight swings that some actresses do for movies, so it's likely that she was actually in great shape.

But being healthy and looking healthy don't always match up.
Well, I think she looks healthy. If someone is just unhealthily thin (i.e. starving) then they don't have abs like that. Someone who's working out, however, would.

Nope. There was a deadline. =( It was a funny situation though. We really thought she'd be at least 6 months by then. Her first child, she was pregnant within 3 months of starting to try. This time, she's gone over a year now and still not pregnant. =(
I've never been in a wedding party so I never know how these things like getting dresses work. Hell if/when I get married I'm totally surprising it on my family (and his I suppose) over lunch at a nice restaurant and being like "yeah, we're heading to city hall after dessert, here are directions..."

I've never been actually unable to find anything. I've got pretty big boobs, but not outside the normal ranges you find in most stores. The one thing we found that might have worked for her was on back-order, so we were out of luck there. And the pasties really didn't do much. Clothing can be difficult. *nodnod*

We didn't try duct tape, though. And we were so prepared for just about everything, you'd think we would have had duct tape on hand.
Yeah, duct tape magically fixes everything, it's awesome like that. :)

It's just not a very pretty solution...

apparently if you puke enough it eats the enamel off your teeth and they rot and fall out anyway........or so my dentist says.
Yeah, that's what that was a refrence to. :p

Yeah, duct tape magically fixes everything, it's awesome like that. :)

It's just not a very pretty solution...

ace bandages work better, you can wrap it tightly and smush down your girls.....it's not conducive to breathing though :(

apparently if you puke enough it eats the enamel off your teeth and they rot and fall out anyway........or so my dentist says.
Vomitus usually comes from the stomach, and it therefore acidic. Them acids destroys the enamel.

apparently if you puke enough it eats the enamel off your teeth and they rot and fall out anyway........or so my dentist says.

RLY NO WAI...


[/end yet another off-topic subject.]

ace bandages work better, you can wrap it tightly and smush down your girls.....it's not conducive to breathing though :(

Ah, but we would have been going for support here, not uniboob or smooshy.

Jesus, I'm lucky to eat 1,600 calories in a day, there is no way I could ever eat that in a single portion(I don't eat fast food-can't stand the shit anymore).

Usually it's split into a couple small meals of a couple hundred during the day, and a big meal of about 800 calories at night(I'm a big pasta eater).

But all that in one sitting... no way.

Doesn't need to be fast food. I've never been very fond of most of that, either.

But say you go to a pub for lunch. A starter, pie, mash and gravy, and a slice of cake or something for pudding. Perhaps a couple of pints of beer to wash it down (at 200-odd calories each). Soon adds up...

Maybe 200g of dried pasta, cooked, - that's 700 calories there (just checked the packet) - some bologneise sauce, grate some cheese on top...

Hey, just five pints in the pub is 1,000 calories. Add some crisps or peanuts or something to that (or go to a curry house :eek:) and, well. Hey, just go to the Indian; their portions are impenetrable to me and curry really isn't ideal as part of a calorie controlled diet.

A 400g bar of chocolate is a good 1600 calories, too.

It's quite easy to do, especially if you're used to eating quite a lot.

Ah, but we would have been going for support here, not uniboob or smooshy.

apparently clothing designers don't think my boobs like to breathe, in order to get an off the rack dress I either have to smush them or get a size unflattering for the rest of my body.

my figure is.......not proportioned in the way that dress makers think it should be.

apparently clothing designers don't think my boobs like to breathe, in order to get an off the rack dress I either have to smush them or get a size unflattering for the rest of my body.

my figure is.......not proportioned in the way that dress makers think it should be.
We can always design and make your clothes ;)...

... and I learned that black can hide my belly. Note that this won't be effective if you've got a big one.

*off to get a Chinese takeout, his sole meal for the day*

Doesn't need to be fast food. I've never been very fond of most of that, either.

But say you go to a pub for lunch. A starter, pie, mash and gravy, and a slice of cake or something for pudding. Perhaps a couple of pints of beer to wash it down (at 200-odd calories each). Soon adds up...

Maybe 200g of dried pasta, cooked, - that's 700 calories there (just checked the packet) - some bologneise sauce, grate some cheese on top...

Hey, just five pints in the pub is 1,000 calories. Add some crisps or peanuts or something to that (or go to a curry house :eek:) and, well. Hey, just go to the Indian; their portions are impenetrable to me and curry really isn't ideal as part of a calorie controlled diet.

A 400g bar of chocolate is a good 1600 calories, too.

It's quite easy to do, especially if you're used to eating quite a lot.

While it's good to eat a little indulgence food here and there, if you're trying to gain weight in the healthiest way, it's best to include 'good' fats and natural sugars. Adding an avocado (about 1200 kj each?) to your sandwhich or salad, and eating a variety of nuts (cashews, almonds, brazil nuts), seeds and dried fruit as snacks/nibblies, and including complex carbohydrates (bread, pasta etc) can add calories to your diet, as well as extra vitamins. Also, juice is a great way to gain without having to eat more. A glass of orange juice has quite a few oranges in it, without the added bulk.

We can always design and make your clothes ;)...

... and I learned that black can hide my belly. Note that this won't be effective if you've got a big one.

*off to get a Chinese takeout, his sole meal for the day*

I sew my own dresses at this point, but I can't do so well for things like evening gowns, so I have to buy them and have them altered.

apparently clothing designers don't think my boobs like to breathe, in order to get an off the rack dress I either have to smush them or get a size unflattering for the rest of my body.

my figure is.......not proportioned in the way that dress makers think it should be.

I have a similar problem, except it's based on my neck size. Get a 19 36/37 shirt, and I can actually wear a tie, it fits my shoulders, and it falls to the correct place on my arm. Unfortunately, I could fit a full three-ring circus in the midsection.

If I got a shirt that looked right on my belly, it'd be several inches too short around the neck and much too tight on the shoulders.

While it's good to eat a little indulgence food here and there, if you're trying to gain weight in the healthiest way, it's best to include 'good' fats and natural sugars. Adding an avocado (about 1200 kj each?) to your sandwhich or salad, and eating a variety of nuts (cashews, almonds, brazil nuts), seeds and dried fruit as snacks/nibblies, and including complex carbohydrates (bread, pasta etc) can add calories to your diet, as well as extra vitamins. Also, juice is a great way to gain without having to eat more. A glass of orange juice has quite a few oranges in it, without the added bulk.

Ah, that wasn't intended as a "healthy weight-gain" plan! http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

I don't think many nutritionists would encourage "five pints and a curry" or eating a family-sized chocolate bar on a regular basis ;)

Just showing that you can eat way more calories than you think without really noticing. But what you say is true; my girlfriend was surprised when I pointed out how many calories there were in fruit juice...

ace bandages work better, you can wrap it tightly and smush down your girls.....it's not conducive to breathing though :(
No, I think what these people did was take a normal bra (maybe it was strapless, I don't remember) and duct taped it in place such that the back was low enough that it couldn't be seen from behind and they taped the front so it would stay put. I can't imagine such a procedure was good for the elastic, but whatever.

apparently clothing designers don't think my boobs like to breathe, in order to get an off the rack dress I either have to smush them or get a size unflattering for the rest of my body.

my figure is.......not proportioned in the way that dress makers think it should be.
If it makes you feel better, I have the opposite problem... I'm the tall one (http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v99/27/45/617505429/n617505429_567074_7531.jpg) note that my bra is visible, yeah, that would be because the top part of the dress is too big and it kept doing that all day no matter how many times I adjusted it.