Big "beautiful" women, are some overweight women really this delusional?

gbee

old hippy wrote: »

No, it's not ok. Oppressing women of a certain size. Shame on you all.

You can say that, but I feel no shame, I've made my life choices and like smoking, there is sufficient medical evidence out there and clinics full of the pain and suffering brought by overweight that, young women [and men] allowing themselves to become over weight is simply wrong and it contributing to healthcare costs for all tax payers.

If you're over 50, you're exempt as you'd not have known and it'd have been your mammie's fault in feedin you up.

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

Ah I get it now.... you're trolling. :rolleyes:

I don't think he is you know. I think he is genuinely horrified that people should be deemed unattractive because they do not conform to a specific physical criteria.

I seem to remember Dawn French was voted sexiest woman in the UK several years in a row...so there are obviously quite a few people who do not equate over weight with ugly .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcQeNnD8f0

XenaLady

Big is not beautiful on either man or a woman but then again, one can always choose to loose weight. And there are several illnesses that really make even that impossible, then you just have to accept the fact that you are the size you were ment to be.
The weight is anyway easier to bare in life than, for example, if you had something wrong with your head. Those problems usually only get worse by age no matter now many meds youre eating. No option of going on diet there.

The point being: shouldnt we just respect each other no matter what size or what problems each one of us has? If you see a fat chick, fat man, lunatic or a diabetic, you still dont have to live their life. Enjoy yours own so?

WoollyRedHat

Fat and Proud= FAP

Katgurl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or as my son once said to me 'what's the story will all these skinny women? I have never heard any guy say "Fwar - look at the pelvic bones on her" '

nice pictures but with the exception of marilyn none of the women, above or below are remotely big. And she's hardly huge.

smash

Katgurl wrote: »

nice pictures but with the exception of marilyn none of the women, above or below are remotely big. And she's hardly huge.

Even including Marilyn, none of the women there are attractive in my eyes.

Logical Fallacy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think he is you know. I think he is genuinely horrified that people should be deemed unattractive because they do not conform to a specific physical criteria.

Not being smart...but everyone does this...everyday.

He and you both have your own criteria of people that you wouldn't consider good looking or attractive.

The main issue here that the majority don't find too much excess weight on either a man or a woman attractive...which is not a crime.

XenaLady

smash wrote: »

Even including Marilyn, none of the women there are attractive in my eyes.

kinky :eek:

Big Nasty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I seem to remember Dawn French was voted sexiest woman in the UK several years in a row...so there are obviously quite a few people who do not equate over weight with ugly .

Dawn French was never attractive, well not in my eyes anyway. Nigella Lawson on the other hand..............:)

Bannasidhe

Katgurl wrote: »

nice pictures but with the exception of marilyn none of the women, above or below are remotely big. And she's hardly huge.

But if people demand numbers? They're certainly out there. According to measurements from Marilyn Monroe's dressmaker:
Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Liz Hurley made perhaps her most lasting contribution to the cultural lexicon when she notoriously declared to Allure, "I've always thought Marilyn Monroe looked fabulous, but I'd kill myself if I was that fat...I went to see her clothes in the exhibition, and I wanted to take a tape measure and measure what her hips were. (laughter) She was very big."

http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe

UK size 16 dress - she would be considered fat today.

Fear Uladh

My milkshake brings all the girls to the yard.

smash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

UK size 16 dress - she would be considered fat today.

There's just something about that statement compared to those measurements that does't add up and never has for me. I don't think I've ever in my life seen someone who has a 22-23 inch waste that's a size 16.

And even if she was a size 16, she's not BBW so fat chicks can fúck off and stop comparing themselves to her.

Monroe was not the size of the chick on this page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1293921/Real-women-transformed-models-Ultimo-campaign.html

Dudess

The Marilyn size 16 thing is supposed to be untrue.

Bannasidhe

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not being smart...but everyone does this...everyday.

He and you both have your own criteria of people that you wouldn't consider good looking or attractive.

The main issue here that the majority don't find too much excess weight on either a man or a woman attractive...which is not a crime.

Yes we all have our own definition of what is attractive.

Thing is, a lot of the posts here giving out about overweight women could have been written by my nephew. A man overly fond of his smokes in front of the tele followed by a serious munchie raid on the kitchen (deep fried chicken wings is the favourite at the moment). He is seriously overweight. His boobs are bigger then mine - and I ain't no pancake. He wobbles when he walks. Yet, he had the cheek a few weeks ago to stop in the street and loudly comment on an overweight woman who walked by 'look at the state of her! **** sake like - that's disgusting!!' said Jabba the Mini Hut. He then got in a huff when it was pointed out that he couldn't actually see his own toes (he's 29 BTW) by his own mother. The cheek of her! Doesn't she know that's different!!

Bad Panda

old hippy wrote: »

Did you say "narrow", as in "narrow minded". Oh, the irony :rolleyes:

I think all that chip fat is interfering with your brain.

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

There's just something about that statement compared to those measurements that does't add up and never has for me. I don't think I've ever in my life seen someone who has a 22-23 inch waste that's a size 16.

Its called an hour-glass figure.

Lia_lia

I seriously doubt Marilyn Monroe was a (todays) UK16. Just look at photos of her! She was a 10 I'd say. 12 at the most.

Bannasidhe

Dudess wrote: »

The Marilyn size 16 thing is supposed to be untrue.

Figures (pardon the pun) I quoted are from her dressmaker. I imagine they would know what dresssize she was... U.S 12/U.K. 16.

Bad Panda

Lia_lia wrote: »

I seriously doubt Marilyn Monroe was a (todays) UK16. Just look at photos of her! She was a 10 I'd say. 12 at the most.

A perfect 10!

sensibleken

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes we all have our own definition of what is attractive.

Thing is, a lot of the posts here giving out about overweight women could have been written by my nephew. A man overly fond of his smokes in front of the tele followed by a serious munchie raid on the kitchen (deep fried chicken wings is the favourite at the moment). He is seriously overweight. His boobs are bigger then mine - and I ain't no pancake. He wobbles when he walks. Yet, he had the cheek a few weeks ago to stop in the street and loudly comment on an overweight woman who walked by 'look at the state of her! **** sake like - that's disgusting!!' said Jabba the Mini Hut. He then got in a huff when it was pointed out that he couldn't actually see his own toes (he's 29 BTW) by his own mother. The cheek of her! Doesn't she know that's different!!

Ha! reminds me of those people you see shouting advise at footballers on the tele in the pub.

XenaLady

Lia_lia wrote: »

I seriously doubt Marilyn Monroe was a (todays) UK16. Just look at photos of her! She was a 10 I'd say. 12 at the most.

She was far from 10

Dudess

To look at her, she did not seem size 16 - about size 12. Apparently there was one size 16 dress in her wardrobe, and dress sizing was different back then. Not saying size 16 is massive but she clearly looked considerably smaller. And on camera, not to mind in the flesh.

Larianne

Dudess wrote: »

The Marilyn size 16 thing is supposed to be untrue.

I went to see that exhibition in Newbridge two years ago (I think) and her dress size was definitely not a UK size 16. The clothes didn't appear to be pinned either. More a 10-12 I'd say.

Seomra Mushie

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe

UK size 16 dress - she would be considered fat today.

Those measurements would at most equate to a size 10, and more likely a size 8. 22 or 23 inch waist a size 16? Yeah right.

Look at these measurements on the ASOS website and tell me how she was ever close to a modern day size 16. http://www.asos.com/infopages/SizeGuide/pgesizechart.aspx She might have been a 1950s 14-16, but that would probably equate to today's 8-10.

XenaLady

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1tcrLeHayo&feature=fvst


Her weight was going up and down but defenately that hip does not fit into a size 10, Im telling you.

Lia_lia

^ Ah, they would! Maybe not a size 10 back in those days, but certainly in a 2012 size 10! Sizes have gone up loads in the last 10-15 years.

Larianne

gcgirl wrote: »

I really hate the way weight somehow decides if you've got health problems, my uncle is well with in his bmi keeps fit does not smoke nor does not drink and it certainly did not stop him from having a stroke, his only good thing going was he lives in France(great healthcare)and not over here but I think we need to look at other reasons behind stroke/heartattacts

So, it wasn't extra weight that caused his stroke. There are other risk factors of course for stroke or heart attacks but being overweight does increase the risk. It is a modifiable risk factor, so if reducing your weight to a healthy weight can help prevent stroke or a heart attack, it is going to be promoted. What's wrong with that? Things like age, gender, race and genetics are non-modifiable so unfortunately, one of these may have been a reason for him to have a stroke.

PhoenixParker

The measurements given earlier in the thread are about a modern size 12.
Marilyn Monroe was not fat.
Relative to her waist size, she had large hips and a large bust, but she wasn't fat, she was the classic hourglass figure.

You can work out her BMI from the stats, at most 140lbs and 5'5", her BMI was 23 at her heaviest, the high side of normal, but normal nonetheless.

As for BMI not being a useful measure, I agree it's not if you're especially fit, but otherwise it works just fine. Find out your BMI, if it's above 25 ask yourself how much exercise you do, maybe get a body fat calculation. If you do alot of exercise and your body fat calculation shows you're healthy, then fine. Otherwise, the BMI is accurate and you need to lose some weight.

gbee

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The measurements given earlier in the thread are about a modern size 12. Marilyn Monroe was not fat.

The youtube link above would suggest hat she was large ~ I'd call her a 12~14 myself Irish Sized. You can clearly see in one or two pic that one could definitely pinch more than an inch.

As mentioned her weigh did fluctuate but she seemed always 'large' ~ her hourglass figure seems to be studio productions around her movies. !!

Nyan Cat

Why is a 12 or even a 14 considered large? I'd call it normal. You cant be morbidly obese and a size 14 unless you're a short woman. Very short. And morbidly obese or beyond plump is what I'd call large.

Dudess

There's a (g)bee flying around making this really annoying buzzing noise - any mod got a fly-swat?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think he is you know. I think he is genuinely horrified that people should be deemed unattractive because they do not conform to a specific physical criteria.

I seem to remember Dawn French was voted sexiest woman in the UK several years in a row...so there are obviously quite a few people who do not equate over weight with ugly .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcQeNnD8f0

He is angry at others for finding people who are 20 stone in weight unattractive, and he is disingenuously pretending that's the same as calling a woman with wobbly thighs unattractive. Nobody is saying that but shur, never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.
Very overweight is unattractive IMO, very underweight is unattractive IMO. A small bit overweight - grand IMO, a small bit underweight - grand IMO. Not looking for perfection. There's a whole spectrum, but for some, it comes down to "one or the other" thinking which is just as narrowminded as what they seek to challenge.
Nobody has said there aren't people who fancy very overweight people, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty don't.

I know it's horrible to bully overweight people, but I do find it irritating when overweight people whinge as if they have a disability over which they have no control, and when they go on as if they are discriminated against because of not being fancied, or when they act as though they're expected to be a stick insect to be hot. Bollocks. A size 20 woman unhappy with her size wouldn't need to get down to size 8 to feel more attractive/get more attention, size 14 would make a huge difference.
If "Be happy with your size" is so true, how come weight-loss success stories are always so couched in positivity? It's not fun to be very overweight - for everyday stuff like climbing steps, never-mind how it looks, and people of that size who say they would not like to be slimmer are more than likely just telling fibs because they can't motivate themselves to do what it takes to lose weight, which is understandable as it's not easy.

Katgurl wrote: »

nice pictures but with the exception of marilyn none of the women, above or below are remotely big. And she's hardly huge.

They're all slim, but just curvier than the really skinny ones - today it's the likes of Kelly Brook who's held up as having the ideal curvy shape. And I agree - she looks amazing I think, but she is not big. She is about size 10. She might need small size 12 tops sometimes but that is only because of her magnificent rack.

smash wrote: »

I don't think I've ever in my life seen someone who has a 22-23 inch waste that's a size 16.

22/23" waist? Size 10-12 is about a 28/30" waist!

Nyan Cat wrote: »

Why is a 12 or even a 14 considered large?

Erra only someone acting the twat would say they're large sizes - although some people might consider those sizes too large for their tastes (which is their entitlement) but no way are they large sizes objectively speaking.

gbee

Nyan Cat wrote: »

Why is a 12 or even a 14 considered large? I'd call it normal.

Not too long ago, a boutique would have to alter or order a 12 for you, some would stock them but as for 14, no ~ you'd need to go to Dunnes.

And then on the first day of the new stock as the larger sizes sold out quickly.

Hence the idea of the larger lady sizes, 14 and above as have appeared in ads, specialising in the fuller figure etc, etc.

Of course, age is something that goes in parallel and as one ages, larger sizes become normal.

RichieC

Ever notice in RL how overweight men are the biggest slaggers of overweight women?

I bet my experience would bare out on boards too.

Dudess

gbee wrote: »

Not too long ago, a boutique would have to alter or order a 12 for you, some would stock them but as for 14, no ~ you'd need to go to Dunnes.

And then on the first day of the new stock as the larger sizes sold out quickly.

Hence the idea of the larger lady sizes, 14 and above as have appeared in ads, specialising in the fuller figure etc, etc.

Of course, age is something that goes in parallel and as one ages, larger sizes become normal.

Explain the curvier woman of the 1950s so?

gbee

Dudess wrote: »

Explain the curvier woman of the 1950s so?

I'll explain their Disappearance instead in one word. Twiggy.

Nyan Cat

I'm thinking that boutiques are supposed to be the mOre affordable designer gear and how it wasn't long ago that most women couldn't afford or cared about designer clothes - maybe?

gbee

Nyan Cat wrote: »

or cared about designer clothes - maybe?

Mary Quant.

Dudess

I would agree with you on Twiggy/Mary Quant - but if women are getting bigger chronologically, well that alone blows that theory out of the water.

XenaLady

Larianne wrote: »

So, it wasn't extra weight that caused his stroke. There are other risk factors of course for stroke or heart attacks but being overweight does increase the risk. It is a modifiable risk factor, so if reducing your weight to a healthy weight can help prevent stroke or a heart attack, it is going to be promoted. What's wrong with that? Things like age, gender, race and genetics are non-modifiable so unfortunately, one of these may have been a reason for him to have a stroke.

A stroke is easily predicted from the level of cholesterole in the blood. Ive had patients who had not a drop of fat in their body, being athletes and all but B-Chol over 6. When their nutritional habits were investigated it was more than obvious that the reason was butter and fried food.
Good luck to everyone enjoying their full Irish brekkie.

gcgirl

Larianne wrote: »

gcgirl wrote: »

I really hate the way weight somehow decides if you've got health problems, my uncle is well with in his bmi keeps fit does not smoke nor does not drink and it certainly did not stop him from having a stroke, his only good thing going was he lives in France(great healthcare)and not over here but I think we need to look at other reasons behind stroke/heartattacts

So, it wasn't extra weight that caused his stroke. There are other risk factors of course for stroke or heart attacks but being overweight does increase the risk. It is a modifiable risk factor, so if reducing your weight to a healthy weight can help prevent stroke or a heart attack, it is going to be promoted. What's wrong with that? Things like age, gender, race and genetics are non-modifiable so unfortunately, one of these may have been a reason for him to have a stroke.

Thing is he is a healthy guy works out does not smoke nor drink, come to think of another guy I know died of a massive heart attack pretty good health before dying, genetics have far more to do than we think, oh the last time I've had my cholesterol done it was a 4.1

cursai

gcgirl wrote: »

Nope it was a fat suit, Christ was you born in a barn with swinging doors, Martin Lawrence used one for Big Mommas House

No not possible. Sure I saw it with my own eyes. You think i'm a dummy or something. sheesh! Give Gwyn credit where its due.

gbee

Dudess wrote: »

I would agree with you on Twiggy/Mary Quant - but if women are getting bigger chronologically, well that alone blows that theory out of the water.

That's a slightly different angle, women are generally getting bigger ~ this is being initially put down to better nutrition and less hard labour ~ but it's also a world wide phenomenon so causality is unproven.

In this thread it's bigger women who shouldn't be so large and is a result of lifestyle, like too much fast food, too much beer and wine, less exercise and too much watching TV ~ not counting medical disorders as previously posted.

A thin girl size 8 can look as good as a thin girl sized 14 providing her physiology is similar, ie she is taller overall bigger, and this is a trend but it's nothing that the woman can do about that so you are right, but for a different reason.

EdenHazard

Let people be how they wanna be, if that makes them feel good then let em at it, who are you to judge?

stupidusername

It's not about judging them. There is an attitude out there that it's ok to be overweight and that it's normal for people to be fat. This is wrong.humans are not meant to carry that extra weight. The BBW type and their supporters are defending a very unhealthy lifestyle. It comes off like a child sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalala I cant hear you!

MungBean

stupidusername wrote: »

It's not about judging them. There is an attitude out there that it's ok to be overweight and that it's normal for people to be fat. This is wrong.humans are not meant to carry that extra weight. The BBW type and their supporters are defending a very unhealthy lifestyle. It comes off like a child sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalala I cant hear you!

Very few human beings have a healthy lifestyle. People drink, people smoke, people use harmful products, a lot of people who are not obese are still unhealthy due to lack of exercise, bad diet and a million other things.

People are meant to carry extra weight, its what we have evolved to do. What we havent adapted to yet though is modern life. Unless you spend your day hunting on the Savannah then your not doing what humans are "suppose" to be doing. Seeing as none of us are actually doing what we are built to do then whats it matter how fat or unhealthy you are if your comfortable being that way ?

Jev/N

MungBean wrote: »

People are meant to carry extra weight, its what we have evolved to do. What we havent adapted to yet though is modern life. Unless you spend your day hunting on the Savannah then your not doing what humans are "suppose" to be doing. Seeing as none of us are actually doing what we are built to do then whats it matter how fat or unhealthy you are if your comfortable being that way ?

No, they're not. People are meant to carry a limited amount of weight. Women different than men due to pregnancy, of course.

Your organs are built to support a certain size and weight. As are your bones. These can adapt, but within certain parameters which shouldn't be tested anyways.

MungBean

Jev/N wrote: »

No, they're not. People are meant to carry a limited amount of weight. Women different than men due to pregnancy, of course.

Your organs are built to support a certain size and weight. As are your bones. These can adapt, but within certain parameters which shouldn't be tested anyways.

If people were not meant to carry extra weight then we wouldnt have evolved to do that. I'm not saying 20 stone is a healthy and ideal weight for the average man or woman but human beings have the ability to carry extra weight.

And the ability to do that is the thing we are "meant" to do. We have evolved to pile on weight in times of surplus. The reason its no longer an advantage to do so is because the environment has changed. Yes we can adapt and change our lifestyle to create the illusion we are still hunter gatherers but we dont have to do that to survive, we can sit on our arses for most of the time and still reproduce so thats what a lot of people are going to do. And eventually we will evolve to suit that environment just as we evolved to be the way we are now to suit what we needed to do millions of years ago.

44leto

They tend to have lovely breasts and very juicy and wholesome..... So yes they are.

Nyan Cat

Being reallly really overweight is unhealthy but .... So is lack of exercise, smoking, drinking, poor diet...
That doesn't wash. Most things are unhealthy to some degree. That doesn't mean you should just give up trying to be health'ier' the 'ier' is the key.
I drink but not to excess. I don't smoke because I hate the smell and know its unhealthy. I do eat junk - it's my weakness. So i exercise so I can eat what I want. Again, I'm not slim not overweight. I'm not an icon of health but the thing is; I don't add to the health risks by going overboard.

Note: not everyone who is overweight is there because of food etc. there's diabetes and a host of other reasons. Yet it is still a much greater risk to their health to be that weight. It's a fact. Organs get compressed by fat - there's a far greater risk of heart attack, heart disease or arterial disease. Developing type 2 diabetes and so on.
Just to be fair: being very underweight is a health risk too, there's no denying that either

XenaLady

MungBean wrote: »

Very few human beings have a healthy lifestyle. People drink, people smoke, people use harmful products, a lot of people who are not obese are still unhealthy due to lack of exercise, bad diet and a million other things.

People are meant to carry extra weight, its what we have evolved to do. What we havent adapted to yet though is modern life. Unless you spend your day hunting on the Savannah then your not doing what humans are "suppose" to be doing. Seeing as none of us are actually doing what we are built to do then whats it matter how fat or unhealthy you are if your comfortable being that way ?

Pointing fingers on others is not nice at all and its very bold as none of us is perfect and has the right to enjoy their lifes the way they want.
Physical appearances matter quite little in life if you come to think of it really. We all turn old eventually, get wrinkles and at that point, all that matters is personality.