Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A problem not just on the internet but in general society and media. What the f*** is wrong with people, spending time going after plus size models, or even some female celebs with a little extra meat?

Plus size model Iskra Lawrence got even with a poster who called her a fat cow.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/aerie-model-iskra-lawrence-fires-1401815583744054.html

No wonder young women starve themselves for society approval, if someone like her gets called fat by some idiot. To me, she's gorgeously voluptuous.

People are shitheads, especially behind the anonymity of the Internet. Nothing new here, really.

I wouldn't call what she did "getting even", however. And frankly, I seriously doubt her statement that she eats in moderation. I mean, come on...

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
And frankly, I seriously doubt her statement that she eats in moderation. I mean, come on...

Why?

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Why?
Cause she's fat.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Cause she's fat.

Are you serious? That blond girl? She's absolutely not fat.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Are you serious? That blond girl? She's absolutely not fat.
Yeah, she is. You don't have to be morbidly obese to be considered fat, you know.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, she is. You don't have to be morbidly obese to be considered fat, you know.

Are you a girl?

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Are you a girl?
No. You can see my gender below my avatar.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Why? Because she weighs 192 pounds and has to eat 2300 calories a day to maintain that weight.

She looks bigger now too. Still gives me a raging boner though.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Because she weighs 192 pounds and has to eat 2300 calories a day to maintain that weight.

She looks bigger now too. Still gives me a raging boner though.

There's no way that girl weighs 190. Unless she's like 5'11.

-QpnKBnsbrM

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
There's no way that girl weighs 190. Unless she's like 5'11.
She's 5'9 apparently. She looks quite a bit thinner in some of her other photos so I assume she must have gained weight recently.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
There's no way that girl weighs 190. Unless she's like 5'11. The only other one says 183 which would cover when she was smaller and now.

Either way her ass and legs are fairly large and her arms aren't small either.

Plus she has interviews where she speaks of eating at five guys and having burgers and chocolate along with not believing in cutting foods out of your diet.

Based on everything put together, it's pretty safe to say she eats a decent amount.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Because she weighs 192 pounds and has to eat 2300 calories a day to maintain that weight.

She looks bigger now too. Still gives me a raging boner though.

5'9" at 192 as a chick is borderline fatty it not fatty.

Just like a guy at that height starts to get fat but girls carry more fat then men, its how it is.

Perhaps the takeaway from this should be that the skinny-fat binary is simplistic and pointless and we should not devote pages to argue about where some person fits into this arbitrary classification we create.

Iskra Lawrence is a great example of how there's lots of space between skinny and obese. I think she looks fantastic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps the takeaway from this should be that the skinny-fat binary is simplistic and pointless and we should not devote pages to argue about where some person fits into this arbitrary classification we create.

Yup, dotors still classify potential health risks based on body types and its not just a binary.

Although some people would certainly like to pretend "labeling" changes perception.

Well, labelling does change perception.

And doctors often use a simple BMI calculation, which would make The Rock a little fatty. The healthiness if a person is just not a clear function of their body-height ratio. Neither is attraction to a person related to the number of kilograms they weigh.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Iskra Lawrence is a great example of how there's lots of space between skinny and obese. I think she looks fantastic. That's because she has incredibly good genes and all she does is squat. Her ass is probably pretty solid.

Her eating that much is probably just to feed her butthole at this point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, labelling does change perception.

And doctors often use a simple BMI calculation, which would make The Rock a little fatty. The healthiness if a person is just not a clear function of their body-height ratio. Neither is attraction to a person related to the number of kilograms they weigh.


They do use a simple BMI on the internet but not your general physician. And the general healthiness of a person can be measured in their diet which reflects on their frame.

Who mentioned anything about attraction here?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Cause she's fat.

Her huge boobs, plus the fact she has no extra chins or neck fat, complete her into looking like a Jessica Rabbit who enjoys a burger. She's big sexy, not someone I would consider overweight.

Originally posted by roughrider
Her huge boobs, plus the fact she has no extra chins or neck fat, complete her into looking like a Jessica Rabbit who enjoys a burger. She's big sexy, not someone I would consider overweight.
Nearly 200 pounds for a 5'9 female is definitely overweight. Just because she doesn't have a double chin(yet), doesn't mean she isn't overweight.

Originally posted by snowdragon
They do use a simple BMI on the internet but not your general physician. And the general healthiness of a person can be measured in their diet which reflects on their frame.

Who mentioned anything about attraction here?

In my experience doctors can be quite simplistic in their approach to weight as well. And even diet is not a good indicator of health either. Really we as a society need to look much more at the individuals in question, rather than make blanket statements on a handful of variables.

Roughrider in his OP, and One Big Mob in his reply both mentioned attraction, and it's always an underlying topic in the discussion of weight, particularly women's weight (or would you disagree in your experience?)

You dont have any experience in anything you are talking about. And even if you did its anecdotal.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You dont have any experience in anything you are talking about. And even if you did its anecdotal.

Since when do you have experience in dieting for weight management? Everything I have seen shows the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In my experience doctors can be quite simplistic in their approach to weight as well. And even diet is not a good indicator of health either. Really we as a society need to look much more at the individuals in question, rather than make blanket statements on a handful of variables.

Roughrider in his OP, and One Big Mob in his reply both mentioned attraction, and it's always an underlying topic in the discussion of weight, particularly women's weight (or would you disagree in your experience?) If you look like you have too much fat, then you could be healthier. I'd say around 20 percent body fat for men and 25 percent body fat for women give or take and you really shouldn't have to worry about health complications from being overweight. At that stage it's purely cosmetic.
I have my doubts doctors will tell patients in that range that they're unhealthy and it's any concern.

Also a good diet is a great indicator of health depending on the time stuck to that diet. A good diet will take away the overweight factor and will show you're doing everything you can to be healthy in the food aspect so therefore something else must be wrong.

My "attraction" had nothing to do with her weight since she's a special case - if she looks that way then her weight is irrelevant to me, though a relevant topic to bring up to others to show again that she eats a lot. By all means her height and weight should make her huge, but she works out a lot so she's not, and good genes, and eating at maintenance though (still a lot). The "kilos" are irrelevant. It's the body fat percentage that becomes about "attraction" ignoring faces.

Iskra isn't fat. She's beautiful, curvaceous, normal. If people were happy with normal, Big Fashion and Big Diet couldn't sell you much, so they've successfully brainwashed the majority into believing sticks are the way to go. They aren't. What's being pushed is emaciation. The body image problems this causes are well-known, widespread, and good for business.

Side note: google 'obesity paradox,' and discover another reason why being a stick is no healthier than being genuinely, severely overweight (which Iskra certainly isn't). Though if one exercises and eats right, this does extend the range of healthy further down either end of the Bell curve.

She has the ideal body type for a woman for me, I don't go for that stick figure, 10 year old boy type stuff.

I don't like body shaming, but we also have this sort of sick thing going on where people act like fat is beautiful, when no..it's just unhealthy. Doesn't mean anyone who is a little overweight is in danger,but yeah..this "it doesn't matter at all" is BS and why so many f*cking people are obese.

You should be proud of your body, you should not be proud of your obesity or act like it's not an issue.

If the issue is unhealthiness then what many of us call fat doesn't really indicate that. Additionally you can be unhealthy and considered beautiful as well. Really the two are only marginally related, and beauty has a lot more to do with societal expectations than medical considerations.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Iskra Lawrence is a great example of how there's lots of space between skinny and obese. I think she looks fantastic.

^ This right here

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the issue is unhealthiness then what many of us call fat doesn't really indicate that. Additionally you can be unhealthy and considered beautiful as well. Really the two are only marginally related, and beauty has a lot more to do with societal expectations than medical considerations.

Yes, but the issue is some women are essentially preaching the message that your body is beautiful no matter what. Which on the surface seems like a positive thing, but then when you look at the numbers for obesity, the health risks, etc. it's a somewhat dangerous narrative to put out there.

A few days ago I was watching a video about women complaining that mannequinns in stores don't resemble "real women".

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but the issue is some women are essentially preaching the message that your body is beautiful no matter what. Which on the surface seems like a positive thing, but then when you look at the numbers for obesity, the health risks, etc. it's a somewhat dangerous narrative to put out there.

A few days ago I was watching a video about women complaining that mannequinns in stores don't resemble "real women".

Actually accepting ones body and generally self love is linked with higher self esteem, which in turn is one of the best things linked with actually getting healthy or losing weight, so even if you disagree with the message, the practical effects are exactly what you seem to desire as well.

And mannequins do not represent any women. Not even the most skinny women. Making them a more general and realistic body shape seems like a reasonable thing to do, no?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually accepting ones body and generally self love is linked with higher self esteem, which in turn is one of the best things linked with actually getting healthy or losing weight, so even if you disagree with the message, the practical effects are exactly what you seem to desire as well.

But it doesn't mean the narrative can't also be potentially harmful.



Actually no it doesn't seem reasonable. Women come in all shapes and sizes, correct? So what..stores should build dozens of mannequinns that conform to the various shapes and sizes? Since no, you can't really just say they should change it to a single body type because women do not have a single body type. So then who decides which body type should be created?

Or like I said, should they make a mannequinn for every single body type? Also wait, some women do have a body type very similar to mannequinns. It's certainly not all women or even a majority, but you said no women at all look like that.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it doesn't mean the narrative can't also be potentially harmful.



Actually no it doesn't seem reasonable. Women come in all shapes and sizes, correct? So what..stores should build dozens of mannequinns that conform to the various shapes and sizes? Since no, you can't really just say they should change it to a single body type because women do not have a single body type. So then who decides which body type should be created?

Or like I said, should they make a mannequinn for every single body type? Also wait, some women do have a body type very similar to mannequinns. It's certainly not all women or even a majority, but you said no women at all look like that.

What I think should happen is that newly build mannequins come either in multiple, more representative, sizes, or if they don't come in multiple they should come in a size that is not unattainable for virtually all women, so more between skinny and fat than on the skinniest side of skinny.

Making women aware of the issue is a good way to assert consumer pressure on the shops, who in turn can demand better mannequins from the manufacturers. Cause capitalism.

What I don't understand is that you seem against the love your body movement, cause fatties are too unhealthy, but that for most women, maybe even all, trying to attain the body that mannequins have is extremely unhealthy...why aren't you against that as well?

Okay but like I just said..women come in more then just 2-3 sizes. So they'd either need to have dozens of mannequinns to fit every body type(which is ridiculous) or they'd have to take it upon themselves to decide which single body type represents women. Which you know that in itself is a shit storm waiting to happen, right? Since the women who didn't measure up to the size they chose would freak out.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but like I just said..women come in more then just 2-3 sizes. So they'd either need to have dozens of mannequinns to fit every body type(which is ridiculous) or they'd have to take it upon themselves to decide which single body type represents women. Which you know that in itself is a shit storm waiting to happen, right? Since the women who didn't measure up to the size they chose would freak out.

Yes, and more and more women are telling them that their choice of skinny on the very end of the bell curve is not the right choice...why is that a problem?

I'm asking you how you determine what the right choice is. How do they decide which body type should represent women? How do you do so without offending the women who don't fit into the size chosen?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm asking you how you determine what the right choice is. How do they decide which body type should represent women? How do you do so without offending the women who don't fit into the size chosen?

Why is that our problem, they are in the mannequin making business. I'm sure they don't spend time thinking about how you can please your customers in your line of work.


As a thought experiment though, if I was in charge I would probably see what my realistic manufacturing methods are...can I make three body type mannequins? Maybe it's easy to make more. Then i'd maybe co opt the movement, put the three body sizes to a vote...or you know have my designers decide on three, get a feel of the customer base. Could be a huge marketing win.

The stores with mannequinns aren't in the mannequinn making business. It's not like these places get them for free, they have to pay for them. Are females going to donate money to these stores in order to pay for the wide variety of mannequinns that would be needed? Also what about the females that *do* have body types similar to the current mannequinns?

Since if I owned a store I'd say f*ck it, no more mannequinns at all. You want to know how you'd look in an outfit? Try it on and look in the mirror.

Since before you said this wasn't unreasonable, but you don't seem to want to get into the specifics of how they'd accomplish this without somehow offending women. The only way to avoid that would be to literally create a mannequinn for every single body shape.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm asking you how you determine what the right choice is. How do they decide which body type should represent women? How do you do so without offending the women who don't fit into the size chosen?

The average size in the US for a woman is 12-14. The typical mannequin isn't close to that.

edit: Granted, they should be making the petite/sport mannequins are they are now as well, as you're not going to fit size 2-4 sport-tights on a size 12-14 mannequin.

Originally posted by Robtard
The average size in the US for a woman is 12-14. The typical mannequin isn't close to that.

But not all women fit into that category, so how do you choose what the mannequinn should look like? What about the women who have bodies smaller then average? Or larger then average?

Originally posted by Surtur
The stores with mannequinns aren't in the mannequinn making business. It's not like these places get them for free, they have to pay for them. Are females going to donate money to these stores in order to pay for the wide variety of mannequinns that would be needed? Also what about the females that *do* have body types similar to the current mannequinns?

Since if I owned a store I'd say f*ck it, no more mannequinns at all. You want to know how you'd look in an outfit? Try it on and look in the mirror.

Since before you said this wasn't unreasonable, but you don't seem to want to get into the specifics of how they'd accomplish this without somehow offending women. The only way to avoid that would be to literally create a mannequinn for every single body shape.

Women spend money in the business, if they are uncomfortable with the mannequins chosen they may take their business elsewhere. It is then on the shop owners to see how to attract more business. They may ask their mannequin sellers for different mannequins, that appeal to their customers. This is really capitalism 101.

Hey, if you were a store owner you could try that. It might even work.

But again: unless you make a mannequinn for every body type there will ALWAYS be women uncomfortable with it. Are you saying that assessment is not true?

I think you are hung up on the offending women part. So what if you offend some women, you have to do what is best for your business in the climate that exists. So find the mannequin set up that's least offensive to most of your customers and run with it.

But you are the one saying they should change it because their customers are uncomfortable with it. They would still have customers uncomfortable with it unless they did a mannequinn for every single body type. Do you disagree with me on that?

Originally posted by Surtur
But not all women fit into that category, so how do you choose what the mannequinn should look like? What about the women who have bodies smaller then average? Or larger then average?

As I noted in my edit, they should be making a broader line of mannequins, imo. I've seen a larger/voluptuous mannequin here and there, but it's rare.

But generally when it's a 'one to represent all' scenario, you go with the average of the total, that way you address the largest amount.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you are the one saying they should change it because their customers are uncomfortable with it. They would still have customers uncomfortable with it unless they did a mannequinn for every single body type. Do you disagree with me on that?

I don't disagree that it is possible that some customers will be uncomfortable with whatever they choose. But again, these things are not binary. It is better for the business to offend just one person than a thousand people. They have to figure out which is the optimal strategy for them.

Originally posted by Robtard
As I noted in my edit, they should be making a broader line of mannequins, imo. I've seen a larger/voluptuous mannequin here and there, but it's rare.

But generally when it's a 'one to represent all' scenario, you go with the average of the total, that way you address the largest amount.

I get this, all I'm saying is you're going to piss off women no matter what unless you make a shitload of mannequinns.

There would be women who would say it's not fair that some store is taking it upon themselves to decide what a "real" woman should look like. I think we both know this would happen even if a store came out and said "we just based it on the size of your average woman".

I'm also wondering if there is even a sizable amount of women out there who would choose not to buy clothes at a certain store because they didn't like the size of the mannequinns.

They don't have to make a mnqn for every size. A size 8-10 mnqn would be representative of size 6-12 women, that's a far broader coverage than the size 2 mnqn now.

We do know what the "average" woman looks like though, it's size 12-14 according to statistics. Would that be "reality"?

The average woman, actually average people deal with that every day when shopping now.

edit: And as I said before, stores that specialize in certain clothing (eg tight sports gear), sure, have the size 2 mnnqn with the ripped abs; that's your target market.

There is no one specific shape, even women with the same height and weight don't have identical body shapes, you know that right? Some are bigger in one area of the body while not in another.

So we take the average size, but do you know the average shape? Is there even an average shape?

So if people are going to whine over mannequinns then I just say instead of looking to a mannequinn just try the clothes on yourself. Most clothing stores will let you try them on. Doesn't that make infinitely more sense then a woman trying to imagine the clothes on a mannequinn that may or may not adhere to her body type?

Since when was it not possible for "fat" and "beautiful" to be mutual concepts?

It kind of weirds me out that so many of the people in this thread that are advocating a relaxing of social judgements on body type are also making statements like "she isn't fat, she's beautiful". There are no beautiful fat people?

I agree with that post very much.

To French in these kinds of discussions "fat", "unattractive " and "uunhealthy are used interchangeably. And it just doesn't make much sense.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Nearly 200 pounds for a 5'9 female is definitely overweight. Just because she doesn't have a double chin(yet), doesn't mean she isn't overweight.

According to her modeling agency, she is 5'9" and 175 lbs. That makes her smart BMI 25.8, which is overweight.

However, she carries that weight in her breasts and hips, which are female fertility markers, and this increases her waist to hip ratio, which is another female fertility cue.

That is why she is both overweight and still attractive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with that post very much.

To French in these kinds of discussions "fat", "unattractive " and "uunhealthy are used interchangeably. And it just doesn't make much sense.

"To French" was an auto correct that I overlooked, I am not sure what the exact phrasing was, but obviously it was meant to convey that these words are used interchangeably too often.

I ask to overlook other typos as well.

When some girl gets called fat, its a big deal, but when homosexuality is called a mental illness, thats ok?

**** off.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Since when was it not possible for "fat" and "beautiful" to be mutual concepts?

It kind of weirds me out that so many of the people in this thread that are advocating a relaxing of social judgements on body type are also making statements like "she isn't fat, she's beautiful". There are no beautiful fat people?
Of course it's possible. Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder.

More on topic.

I believe if someone is trying to insult you or something, its fair game to call them fat back or whatever, but as a whole, body shaming can cause that person to commit suicide, or starve themselves.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
When some girl gets called fat, its a big deal, but when homosexuality is called a mental illness, thats ok?

**** off.

Who are you referring to that holds these two opinions?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who are you referring to that holds these two opinions? I was bringing up how everyone thinks its an outrage that a girl was called fat, but its suddenly ok to make a thread where Homosexuality is considered mental illness.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to her modeling agency, she is 5'9" and 175 lbs. That makes her smart BMI 25.8, which is overweight.

However, she carries that weight in her breasts and hips, which are female fertility markers, and this increases her waist to hip ratio, which is another female fertility cue.

That is why she is both overweight and still attractive.
The stats I found says she weights 192lbs. Perhaps these are newer stats because she definitely looks slimmer in her older photos.

I'm not saying she's unattractive, but I'd definitely find her more attractive if she was a couple dozen pounds lighter.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I was bringing up how everyone thinks its an outrage that a girl was called fat, but its suddenly ok to make a thread where Homosexuality is considered mental illness.

No, I get that. I just think those two are mainly unrelated, I may be overlooking something, but of those contributing to both threads those that don't want people to be insulted as fat are also the people who don't approve of homosexuality being considered in the light of a mental illness, and vice versa. Is that inaccurate?

You don't think a woman has serious mental issues if she refuses to buy clothes from a store just because of the size and shape of the mannequinns?

I just wonder if people like this just feel exhausted at ALL the shit they have to get offended over. It must be tiring. It must be like when someone with telepathic powers can't control their powers and thus no matter where they go from all sides they are bombarded by thoughts. These people are bombarded by silly shit they can make a fuss over. If it's not the mannequinns it is who can use what bathroom or whining over silly shit on college campuses or..hell it exhausts me just hearing about it.

Originally posted by Surtur
You don't think a woman has serious mental issues if she refuses to buy clothes from a store just because of the size and shape of the mannequinns?


No, of course not.

I guess we can disagree on that. If the shape of a mannequinn bothers someone so much I think there is a problem.

You really like to take your social anger on anyone different from you, Surtur. Even on topics you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You really like to take your social anger on anyone different from you, Surtur. Even on topics you know nothing about.

It doesn't have to do with people being different, but making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you disagree hey that is fine, you can have your opinion.

I mean, it's even an asinine thing to say. There are tons of people different from me. Hell there are white straight men who are different from me. Babies are different then me. Do I hate babies and whites? Asian people are different, am I angry with them too?

You say I don't know what I'm talking about and yet in the very same post you say something that makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about either.

You can't really grasp why it's a big deal for others because you can't really empathize with them, and yet you treat it like it's stupid because you don't share their views or problems. What does that sound like?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You can't really grasp why it's a big deal for others because you can't really empathize with them, and yet you treat it like it's stupid because you don't share their views or problems. What does that sound like?

That settles it, Surtur needs to spend a year as a black obese transsexual homosexual Muslim.

And breastfeed an asian baby publicly in the hood.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You can't really grasp why it's a big deal for others because you can't really empathize with them, and yet you treat it like it's stupid because you don't share their views or problems. What does that sound like?

It sounds like everyone else on this forum when it comes to one topic or another.

Anyways, you need to learn to deal with the opinions of others. I said that I don't want to see breastfeeding in a restaurant or something. That was the jist of it. People acted like I said the women should be stoned in public for it.

Just like I disagree that it isn't silly to get upset over a mannequinn. But suddenly that means I can't empathize with women even though I never said women have it easy or don't face hurdles when it comes to body image. I understand getting uncomfortable because of the models that are used that don't look like normal women. By "models" I mean real actual people. I understand that, I don't understand it with a mannequinn, some of which don't even have heads.

On top of that, what you just described doesn't even equate to "you take out anger on anyone different". Which more or less is another way of saying "you can't stand people who are different then you".

Originally posted by Surtur
It sounds like everyone else on this forum when it comes to one topic or another.

Anyways, you need to learn to deal with the opinions of others. I said that I don't want to see breastfeeding in a restaurant or something. That was the jist of it. People acted like I said the women should be stoned in public for it.

Just like I disagree that it isn't silly to get upset over a mannequinn. But suddenly that means I can't empathize with women even though I never said women have it easy or don't face hurdles when it comes to body image. I understand getting uncomfortable because of the models that are used that don't look like normal women. By "models" I mean real actual people. I understand that, I don't understand it with a mannequinn, some of which don't even have heads.

On top of that, what you just described doesn't even equate to "you take out anger on anyone different". Which more or less is another way of saying "you can't stand people who are different then you". It was still a silly complain just like the mannequin one, only without a valid justification.

And yes, it was a poor choice of words. What I meant is that you like to complain but when someone who thinks different than you makes a complain you dismiss it as being stupid because reasons.

I do dismiss somethings as being stupid, but it's not an automatic thing for every differing viewpoint. For instance I am in favor of the death penalty and I don't understand how some people could want to let murderers live, but I don't say they are stupid. I'm pro choice, but I don't necessarily think the people who are pro life are stupid.

But yes for certain things I do find stupid. To give yet another example I find Jenny McCarthy's whole attitude towards vaccinations asinine. I don't just disagree with her, I find her silly.

Well, this is what arguing with sjw/progressive resorts to. They win the conversation by labeling you racist, sexist etc and then shut down the argument. They complain about conservative fear mongering yet they fail to see the hypocrisy of how they label everything as racist, sexist, etc....thus creating a world where nobody is held responsible because everything around them is holding them down due to a reason that they were "born with". how great it must be

... are a bunch of men arguing about how to make mannequins less offensive?

Originally posted by Surtur
I do dismiss somethings as being stupid, but it's not an automatic thing for every differing viewpoint. For instance I am in favor of the death penalty and I don't understand how some people could want to let murderers live, but I don't say they are stupid. I'm pro choice, but I don't necessarily think the people who are pro life are stupid.

But yes for certain things I do find stupid. To give yet another example I find Jenny McCarthy's whole attitude towards vaccinations asinine. I don't just disagree with her, I find her silly. Fair enough.

Just for the record, I don't encourage the idea of obesity being okay, that shit is just unhealthy. What I really have a problem with is the unrealistic expectations the society sets for women and men in regards to physique, which is unhealthy af too and leads to all kind of real mental illnesses. It's awful to see people you love ruined by that.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Fair enough.

Just for the record, I don't encourage the idea of obesity being okay, that shit is just unhealthy. What I really have a problem with is the unrealistic expectations the society sets for women and men in regards to physique, which is unhealthy af too and leads to all kind of real mental illnesses. It's awful to see people you love ruined by that. Right now it's just people having a problem with obesity and then obese people having a problem with everyone else, so much so that they created names to make fun of "smallfats" and the like. Normal people aren't really targeted anymore.

It's pretty funny though to see people preaching HAES tearing into people with abs

Originally posted by One Big Mob

It's pretty funny though to see people preaching HAES tearing into people with abs

Who is doing that? Obesity is dangerous and shouldn't be promoted, but that'd different than fat/body shaming.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is doing that? Obesity is dangerous and shouldn't be promoted, but that'd different than fat/body shaming.

I'm curious about your views on airplane seats. If a person can't fit in a seat do you feel it is wrong to make them pay for two seats? Some people call that fat shaming. But on the other hand wouldn't it make it extremely uncomfortable if you were sitting next to someone who could not properly fit into their sit? By that I mean physically uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm curious about your views on airplane seats. If a person can't fit in a seat do you feel it is wrong to make them pay for two seats? Some people call that fat shaming. But on the other hand wouldn't it make it extremely uncomfortable if you were sitting next to someone who could not properly fit into their sit? By that I mean physically uncomfortable.



Telling someone they need two seats cos their ass is too wide is shaming them, really no way around that. So it's an unfortunately necessary fat shaming as it's an understandable one from a business practice.

Airlines exist to provide a service/make money and they sell by seat, not the size of the person. eg a baby taking a seat costs as much as an adult, but a parent/guardian can opt to not pay for a baby is they chose to hold the child and take up one seat together.

Originally posted by Robtard
Telling someone they need two seats cos their ass is too wide is shaming them, really no way around that. So it's an unfortunate fat shaming as it's an understandable one from a business practice.

Airlines exist to provide and service/make money and they sell by seat, not the size of the person. eg a baby taking a seat costs as much as an adult, but a parent/guardian can opt to not pay for a baby is they chose to hold the child and take up one seat together.

I don't know if I'd call it shaming as much as an uncomfortable truth. Admittedly it's probably going to hurt their feelings no matter what, but I would imagine it's the only fair way to go about it. If you're taking up two seats then you pay for both.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I was bringing up how everyone thinks its an outrage that a girl was called fat, but its suddenly ok to make a thread where Homosexuality is considered mental illness.

That's got nothing to do with anything. Did the OP who made that thread push the viewpoint that it's okay to think of homosexuality as a mental illness? They just brought up the fact it was listed as such in medical books until the early 1970's; it's not believed to be the case anymore, except by an extremist minority.

While I stared this thread with the definite opinion that body shaming is wrong, and it's out of control in society and the media. People can have varying opinions on how much weight is healthy on your frame and what constitutes beauty, but going to extremes in shaming is what drives women to bulimia and being anorexic.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know if I'd call it shaming as much as an uncomfortable truth. Admittedly it's probably going to hurt their feelings no matter what, but I would imagine it's the only fair way to go about it. If you're taking up two seats then you pay for both. We pretty much agree on the main point, you pay for as many seats as you use up.

Though I would like to think airlines would be willing to only charge one ticket for a person that uses two if the flight isn't booked and they have the empty space, as a courtesy to large(r) people.

Originally posted by roughrider
That's got nothing to do with anything. Did the OP who made that thread push the viewpoint that it's okay to think of homosexuality as a mental illness? They just brought up the fact it was listed as such in medical books until the early 1970's; it's not believed to be the case anymore, except by an extremist minority.

While I stared this thread with the definite opinion that body shaming is wrong, and it's out of control in society and the media. People can have varying opinions on how much weight is healthy on your frame and what constitutes beauty, but going to extremes in shaming is what drives women to bulimia and being anorexic.

Thanks for clearing that up man. I hate that we can't have an open discussion without someone mucking it up or labeling

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is doing that? Obesity is dangerous and shouldn't be promoted, but that'd different than fat/body shaming. How is that different? And of course it doesn't exist... I just made it up.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/27/68/d4/2768d435e3d81b74ddf3099d464f2ca1.jpg
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ijlXFS.099.DfKuKGGXdEA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTUwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w500/01c8b79011f1c8519df1dbb8fb7f5fecc1bcc4a7.jpg

This one especially
http://i.imgur.com/cYfzBpJ.jpg



There's tons of shit like this. It's ok to make fun of healthy people but you should accept obesity

Originally posted by One Big Mob
How is that different? And of course it doesn't exist... I just made it up.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/27/68/d4/2768d435e3d81b74ddf3099d464f2ca1.jpg
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ijlXFS.099.DfKuKGGXdEA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTUwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w500/01c8b79011f1c8519df1dbb8fb7f5fecc1bcc4a7.jpg

This one especially
http://i.imgur.com/cYfzBpJ.jpg



There's tons of shit like this. It's ok to make fun of healthy people but you should accept obesity
This is what happens when the painstakingly constructed walls of denial are broken down: all the rage and spite comes pouring out.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
http://i.imgur.com/cYfzBpJ.jpgThe woman with the sixpac likely has exercise-induced amenorrhea.

Everyone should just stfu, then everyone would be happy, especially me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though I would like to think airlines would be willing to only charge one ticket for a person that uses two if the flight isn't booked and they have the empty space, as a courtesy to large(r) people.

Would this be fair though? Since before you mentioned how a child, no matter how small, is in a seat they need to pay for it, right? So it sounds like as long as someone is taking up even a portion of the seat it needs to be paid for.

It just seems like that would be granting them special treatment right?

Air Travel isn't Isn't fair either way, there's people that pay half for business class seats than most people pay for their economy seats. Companies providing the free seats that they do have on the plane for those in most need of them as a courtesy isn't really a big deal, and it serves both the person that would have had to sit next to the large person and the large person themselves. Now of the flight is booked out there's another issue, the only thing that the airline then could do is refusing to fly the big person, which is not ideal either. You could say that they should have bought two seats but then it is really too late.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Air Travel isn't Isn't fair either way, there's people that pay half for business class seats than most people pay for their economy seats. Companies providing the free seats that they do have on the plane for those in most need of them as a courtesy isn't really a big deal, and it serves both the person that would have had to sit next to the large person and the large person themselves. Now of the flight is booked out there's another issue, the only thing that the airline then could do is refusing to fly the big person, which is not ideal either. You could say that they should have bought two seats but then it is really too late.

I don't know the rationale behind the business class seats. Maybe its because they think businessmen fly way way more often? I don't know, nobody said air lines are the fairest places in the world, but if you take up two seats then you should pay for them.

I think you misunderstood my point. Airlines don't make you pay if you have a free seat next to you, so why should they only charge if an otherwise free seat is next to a bigger person? And if there are no free seats available then they can't sell another seat, so at the end of the day, when it comes to actually see whether a person takes up two seats it's basically too late to do much about it, except for throwing the fat person out of the plane. Which you know won't play well PR wise.

Nobody said automatically charge a fat person if a seat next to them is empty. What was said is if they take up more then one seat they get charged for it. This isn't rocket science we're dealing with: you take up more then one seat you pay for more then one. If you don't take up more then one seat then you pay for one seat. It's quite simple.

If an overweight person should get two seats for the price of one then EVERYONE should, correct? It just shouldn't be obese people? People shouldn't get special treatment based on size or race, right Bardock? You are against special treatment due to size or race or gender, right?

If someone is so overweight they can't fit in the seat then they need to pay for the extra seat they take up. If they have a problem with this or feel that acknowledging reality and the limitations of airplane seating is "fat shaming" then the solution is not to fly. Drive a car. I hear trains are cool neat ways to travel. You need to go overseas? Take a boat or some shit. Charter a submarine if you have to.

Though of course if you can afford to charter a submarine then you can afford to pay for the extra seat you take up.

^I was thinking of the Kevin Smith incident on Southwest Airlines the other day. I'm sure he had the moolah to pay for a larger seat business class style if he wanted. You can be whatever size you want, but as soon as you take up two whole seats on a jet because you can't squeeze into one, you're got a serious weight problem that goes beyond body shaming.

Although Smith claims he was able to squeeze into one seat and put down the armrests, so there might be more to the incident.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35406030/ns/travel-news/t/oversized-kevin-smith-ejected-flight/#.Vw_HCXpOyrs

It's one of those things where I guess it's accidental fat shaming. I mean you aren't trying to make them feel bad, but if you are taking up more then one seat you are probably going to be required to pay for it.

Now for the Kevin Smith thing I'm on the fence about because he said he could fit in but he had to really squeeze into it in order to do so. Well okay, but when what if you have a really long flight? Sitting like that, squeezed into a single seat, for many many hours..surely not only would this cause discomfort, but possibly some kind of potential back problem or something? So I don't know it might of been a safety thing. Though I guess if he legitimately could fit in and put the arm rests down then he should of been allowed to fly if he wanted to fly.

It reminds me of another instance of accidental fat shaming, but this time it wasn't on an airline. I was watching this tv special and the guy they were talking about was a big guy. So big in fact that when a health issue came up where he required an MRI he actually had to go to the local zoo to get his MRI because he could not fit into the MRI machines the hospital/doctor had. So he had to go to the zoo and use an MRI made specifically for giving large animals an MRI. So I mean when the guy was told this he kind of laughed it off, but I'm sure that had to of hurt and yet..there was no other choice. It was either that or he doesn't get an MRI.

I can sympathize with him because I've had many many MRI's done and sometimes you have to lay there for a long time. So I can't imagine what it must of been like to have to endure that..but at the zoo.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's one of those things where I guess it's accidental fat shaming. I mean you aren't trying to make them feel bad, but if you are taking up more then one seat you are probably going to be required to pay for it.

Now for the Kevin Smith thing I'm on the fence about because he said he could fit in but he had to really squeeze into it in order to do so. Well okay, but when what if you have a really long flight? Sitting like that, squeezed into a single seat, for many many hours..surely not only would this cause discomfort, but possibly some kind of potential back problem or something? So I don't know it might of been a safety thing. Though I guess if he legitimately could fit in and put the arm rests down then he should of been allowed to fly if he wanted to fly.

It reminds me of another instance of accidental fat shaming, but this time it wasn't on an airline. I was watching this tv special and the guy they were talking about was a big guy. So big in fact that when a health issue came up where he required an MRI he actually had to go to the local zoo to get his MRI because he could not fit into the MRI machines the hospital/doctor had. So he had to go to the zoo and use an MRI made specifically for giving large animals an MRI. So I mean when the guy was told this he kind of laughed it off, but I'm sure that had to of hurt and yet..there was no other choice. It was either that or he doesn't get an MRI.

I can sympathize with him because I've had many many MRI's done and sometimes you have to lay there for a long time. So I can't imagine what it must of been like to have to endure that..but at the zoo.

That was once an episode of Scrubs, that plot. This patient was a regular, really well liked, and J.D. (Zack Braff) didn't want to insult him with a trip to the zoo for an MRI. Elliot (Sarah Chalke) shoves him aside and gives the patient the brutal truth, professionally. The patient is disappointed, but understands. Elliot later chastises J.D. for his continuing pattern of not being able to tell people the honest truth because he wants to be liked.

I think you can give people an opinion about their body without getting into body shaming, if you do it right.

Holy shit I hope Scrubs based that off a real thing otherwise I'm starting to associate reality with shitty tv shows. Not cool Zach Braff, not cool at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, labelling does change perception.

.

Is it worth identifying ppl regardless of issue.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Is it worth identifying ppl regardless of issue.

Is this a question or a statement? In either case I am not sure what you mean.

https://ca.style.yahoo.com/post/142855662480/woman-fires-back-at-body-shamer-who-said-girls

Originally posted by roughrider
https://ca.style.yahoo.com/post/142855662480/woman-fires-back-at-body-shamer-who-said-girls

Dude give me some warning next time. Ew. I'm sorry..I'm not saying she can't wear a bikini, but if she is going to post pictures of herself in it online for people to see then it opens it up to commentary.

Also once again it shows it's usually the women doing the fat shaming of other women.

Look, it's one thing to insult fat people to their face but a lot of us don't want to look at hanging flesh...it's just not attractive. But more importantly, being fat/obese is unhealthy and if we start praising that lifestyle more people will go down that path than they already do (which is sad). I'm an American and I'm a bit disappointed with the current state of health here. A lot of people don't do any activities and just sit around netflixing or whatnot instead of being active.

It almost seems like a cry for attention. Oh you said I don't have the right body for a bikini...*posts photos that show that is more or less true* well okay.

Though I still think 90% of the shaming is done to women by women.

Yah, and look, I absolutely DO NOT condone people going on social media and making fun of other people under ANY circumstance. That being said, if you are fat/obese and you post pictures of yourself on social media, you are absolutely opening yourself up to that kind of cruelty.


And again, I don't like the state of health of my country, nor many countries in the world. We as a society have become gluttons for everything; food, entertainment, etc. We forgot what it is to be active, to eat right and in moderation and to practice healthy life choices.

Just like I don't condone making fun of people, I also don't condone praising or reinforcing fat/obese people that feel the need to flaunt their bodies on social media. If your comfortable in your body that's fine; but you shouldn't feel like it's the right way to live. You will feel Much better if you only would practice a healthy diet and exercise. It will increase your metabolism, your energy levels and also self-esteem.

I mean there has to be a middle ground. Don't go out of your way to make someone feel bad about themselves. But if someone is going to...I don't even know, I think you need to be aware of your limitations.

I mean I guess I just wonder..who are you wearing a bikini for? Yourself? Some guy? Just for the hell of it? Or just because you feel you SHOULD be able to wear one?

Went to a local wrestling show the other day. Curtain jerker had a guy with man boobs on his man boobs. And that's what you can make out before he takes his shirt off.

The guy's whole gimmick was based on body shaming, and it was awesome.

As to the topic, I'm generally against shaming people (Lets call it what it is, being a dick to someone), but I do think not taking care of yourself shows a certain lazyness. Yeah, not everybody sits on their arse and eats donuts, but if you've ever been to a gym many people phone it in.. And I doubt most fatties have glandular problems.

And the whole "shaming skinnies" is just stupid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is this a question or a statement? In either case I am not sure what you mean.

That is the question/statement that is designed around the issue.

Jennifer Lopez has been body shamed in the past.

Freaking JLo, with one of the rockin' celebrity bodies out there!

https://ca.style.yahoo.com/jennifer-lopez-opens-being-body-140646968.html