There is a group on Facebook called something along the line sof 'Curvy girls are better than size zero girls' or something equally inspired....however, although the title is rubbish, I know where the creator is coming from. What is attractive or sexy about starving yourself until you look like a lollipop? Not to mention the havoc it wreaks with ones menstrual cycle/skin/hair/nails etc. No no no, sooooo not a good look.
So anyway, lots of us 'curvy ' girls have put photo's up on this group, nice photo's , celebrating our curves and our right to have them. Now, this is the bit where the lines get fuzzy. I am a curvy girl. You only have to look at my profile pics to see that. I am also a size 12. If I go up to a size 14, or at a push, a 16 , I will still be considered curvy. If I simply cannot say no to that 10th slice of cake and go beyond the boundry into 18 plus land, I am FAT. Yep, I am saying it, FAT. Sorry ladies (and men) but if you are that big you are unhealthily over weight and that really is all there is to it. On this Facebook group, it has caused quite a stir, as the board has been inundated with pics of really really fat ladies calling themselves curvy who in thier own way are just as bad an example to young girls as the Lollipop brigade. In the same way that it is stupid and rather disgusting to starve yourself, it is stupid and rather disgusting to stuff your face too.
Ok, rant over. I'm pretty sure I shall have lots of cross fat people having a go at me now..........
-
- 2008-07-03 @ 15:35:21
-
- 2008-07-04 @ 19:06:54
I completely agree. It's a definition which has been plaguing me (as a fellow curvy (read: not fat, only a 12-14!) woman). Someone once defined it as curviness falling into two definite camps- a fat skinny person, or a slimmer fat person. In the age of obesity- a slimmer fat person is now in the realms of size 18. Which, I agree with you, is pushing the boundaries of 'curvy' unless the woman is also 6' in which case she's just in curvy proportion!
Extremes are never healthy. women are supposed to be curvy which is why it's bad to be too slim- no periods, bad skin, excess fuzz etc.. and equally bad to be fat- higher risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, stretched skin beyond the normal...
I suppose it's not really as simple as just a size issue. For example, I might be a size 14 in general but my waist is only 28 inches and I can run for an hour quite comfortably. People see 14 as being quite big. Maybe we're guilty of seeing 18 as big when there are always exceptions to the rule?-
- 2008-07-04 @ 19:14:27
I do agree with you actually with regards to size 18, perhaps I was a bit hasty as some taller woman can wear an 18 and not be at all fat....however anything above that is a bit too large I think. I'm like you, I wear 14 now and again, it often depends on the manufacturer don't you think? Sometimes I can wear a 10! I love it when that happens lol.
-
- 2008-07-06 @ 11:35:03
lol that hasn't happened to me in years unfortunately! But yeah, completely depends on the manufacturer...
What I have a problem stomaching is that BMI rate- it's so vague!! YEt people seem to place a lot of trust into it.
Actually, it's funny- I was at the pool yesterday and there was this really attractive couple sitting by me. It was only on closer inspection that I realised the woman must have been a size 18 if not 20. She looked fat, sure, but not gross fat. Maybe it was her complete lack of cellulite or good skin. Then I saw another woman who can't have been more than a 14 and she looked horrendous (I'm such a bitch sometimes!) just really flabby. Anyway. I'll stop criticising everyone now!
-
- 2008-07-08 @ 23:46:11
Size 12 - Fat - Nurrrrr !
Ianrosmarin
All I can say is I agree when it comes to women a women I on view needs a bit of fat on the hips!