Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Faye is curvy
misticloudz:
--- Quote from: SayWhat on 18 Jan 2009, 18:07 ---I'm the one who has to spend 6 hours shopping to find two pairs of freaking jeans.
Granted, it'd be easier to find jeans if I were shorter, but oh well.
--- End quote ---
Man. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you but I feel your pain. I don't care much for BMI measurements, but sizewise I'm a 43-33-46 (chest-waist-hips) and just shy of 5'5". I'm in a limbo zone between petites and regular length, because the petites are just too short, and the regulars are just too long. So I either have to wear heels (which I have issues walking in :P) or hem every single pair of pants that I buy (or walk on the hems and tear them to shreds like usually ends up happening). So that, added to the fact that it's nearly impossible to find a pair of jeans that will comfortably fit my hips/thighs that doesn't have an extremely low wasit or gapes at the back and shows off my lovely skivvies.
I think it's ridiculous that pretty much all of mainstream fashion is directed towards the 5'6" 120lb type, yet it always seems to be the larger sizes that sell out the quickest. Some people never learn...
I've been seriously considering just making my own clothes just for this reason..
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: Random832 on 28 Jan 2009, 11:20 --- But "height squared" is a meaningless quantity and thus so is any ratio based on it.
--- End quote ---
Height is correlated with width. Height times width equals area. Weight per area increases as people get thicker. So weight per height squared is not meaningless, just approximate and irretrievably flawed.
emmaleigh:
--- Quote from: misticloudz on 01 Feb 2009, 11:15 ---
--- Quote from: SayWhat on 18 Jan 2009, 18:07 ---I'm the one who has to spend 6 hours shopping to find two pairs of freaking jeans.
Granted, it'd be easier to find jeans if I were shorter, but oh well.
--- End quote ---
I think it's ridiculous that pretty much all of mainstream fashion is directed towards the 5'6" 120lb type, yet it always seems to be the larger sizes that sell out the quickest. Some people never learn...
--- End quote ---
Yes! And you know, I am pretty sure it takes ALL girls/women six hours to find jeans.
And to everyone saying fat is unhealthy, you do know there is a difference between being fat and being unhealthy, yes? Skinny people can be horribly out of shape and supposed-fat people can be incredibly in shape! They are different. For example I am typically referred to as "normal" (I am 5'9" and my weight fluctuates ridiculously between about 150 and 170 for no valid reason), and I am cool with my weight! But I am the most out of shape person I know. This is because of back problems I have right now that prevent any exercise, but after having surgery in March that should all change... blah blah blah... anyway, I "look" the part but am way unhealthy! So all those numbers are just really very silly to argue about. People are people.
SayWhat:
--- Quote from: misticloudz on 01 Feb 2009, 11:15 ---
--- Quote from: SayWhat on 18 Jan 2009, 18:07 ---I'm the one who has to spend 6 hours shopping to find two pairs of freaking jeans.
Granted, it'd be easier to find jeans if I were shorter, but oh well.
--- End quote ---
Man. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you but I feel your pain. I don't care much for BMI measurements, but sizewise I'm a 43-33-46 (chest-waist-hips) and just shy of 5'5". I'm in a limbo zone between petites and regular length, because the petites are just too short, and the regulars are just too long. So I either have to wear heels (which I have issues walking in :P) or hem every single pair of pants that I buy (or walk on the hems and tear them to shreds like usually ends up happening). So that, added to the fact that it's nearly impossible to find a pair of jeans that will comfortably fit my hips/thighs that doesn't have an extremely low wasit or gapes at the back and shows off my lovely skivvies.
I think it's ridiculous that pretty much all of mainstream fashion is directed towards the 5'6" 120lb type, yet it always seems to be the larger sizes that sell out the quickest. Some people never learn...
I've been seriously considering just making my own clothes just for this reason..
--- End quote ---
If I could sew without attaching myself to the clothing, that would be awesome. I'd be making my own damn prom dress, for one, instead of buying it and then paying to get it altered.
I thought I was one of the only girls who had issues walking in heels. I'm so ungraceful at it. Lol.
What really aggravated me was that for our senior hoodies, I had a choice of Huge, freaking huge, and fucking tent for the sizes. The small was ginormous, and there was no x-small.
But there's a XXX-L. Wtf.
Emmaleigh makes a really good point. Since an 18.5 is considered 'underweight' and below that, I'm supposedly way unhealthy and probably bulimic/anorexic. However I'm fairly active and eat often and mostly balanced (I could use more vegetables, I guess) meals. Granted I don't have as much muscle weight as I could but that's because a) I'm not really interested in muscle weight and b)strenuous physical activity that would really build up muscle mass is out of the question. But I'm not going to die of heart failure anytime soon.
Catbus:
--- Quote from: PantsFTW on 01 Feb 2009, 04:11 ---There are people posting in this thread defending curvy girls.
Curvy is the nicer way of saying that she is fat
--- End quote ---
1. "Curvy," in my book, means "hourglass." Being 5-foot-6 and weighing 160 pounds doesn't make you "curvy." Being 5-foot-6, weighing 160 pounds and having a 28-inch waist above your 40-inch hips makes you "curvy." If you have an apple-shaped or rectangular build, you're not "curvy."
Faye is absolutely curvy, though I can't vouch for the other posters who claim that they are.
2. BMI is broken because, for similar body type and build, body mass varies by cube of height, not by square of height. For a better indicator, divide weight in pounds by cube of height in feet. The healthiest wt/ht3 for an adult woman is between 0.75 and 0.85, for an adult man between 0.8 and 0.9. If your wt/ht3 is above 1 (woman) or 1.05 (man), you need very much to lose weight.
Unfortunately, while the media idealize a healthy weight in men, the "visual ideal" for women is wt/ht3 of 0.65 to 0.7.
Dora and Hannelore look to have a wt/ht3 of about 0.6, Penelope about 0.7. Faye, I'd guess to be around 0.9, maybe 0.95.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version