UK Says no to "Dat Gap"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**-Shrike-**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Barely average? Her thighs are about the size of my waist.

I'm not saying she's fat, but she does not have an "average" build.

According to the internet she's a US dress size 12, which is the equivalent of UK dress size 14 or 16. In the UK size 14-16 is the average dress size for women. From a quick google search apparently the average dress size in the US is 10-14, so she's average there, too.

I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.

**A Town Called Malus**

Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

After all, when this and this are a thing, it's hard to argue that perception of what is and isn't "fat" or healthy is massively skewed.

In particular:

Bridget Jones: She weighed nine and a half stone (133 pounds). Yup, real whale there. Although the point might be that she obsesses about her weight so much, not that she's actually fat. Renee Zellweger at her Bridget Jones weight was considered too fat for the cover of Harper's Bazaar. Zellweger as Bridget Jones was supposed to be a UK size 14 (which is a US size 10). She gained only enough weight to reach a size 6, but even this spawned dozens of newspaper and magazine articles on her weight gain. Though during interviews at the time, she claimed to enjoy being heavier, she lost the weight as soon as filming was done and when it came time to film a sequel, she refused to gain weight until the studio literally paid her for every extra pound she put on.

Or the Love Actually one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Shrike- wrote:

I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.

I think so too but the comment wasn't about what is overweight but rather what is "average".

**-Shrike-**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

**djones520**

-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Barely average? Her thighs are about the size of my waist.

I'm not saying she's fat, but she does not have an "average" build.

According to the internet she's a US dress size 12, which is the equivalent of UK dress size 14 or 16. In the UK size 14-16 is the average dress size for women. From a quick google search apparently the average dress size in the US is 10-14, so she's average there, too.

I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.

Well, I guess if you look at it in that light, she would be "barely average" since 1 in 4 citizens of the UK are Obese.

**-Shrike-**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

I'm pretty sure the average person in both the US and UK is overweight.

I think so too but the comment wasn't about what is overweight but rather what is "average".

Perhaps "average healthy build" would have cleared things up.

**A Town Called Malus**

-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

Really? Because not too long ago the media was calling her fat.

Don't know about you but she looks okay to me.

**djones520**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

Really? Because not too long ago the media was calling her fat.

Don't know about you but she looks okay to me.

Well, size 12 clothing does mean you are overweight.

**A Town Called Malus**

djones520 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

Really? Because not too long ago the media was calling her fat.

Don't know about you but she looks okay to me.

Well, size 12 clothing does mean you are overweight.

Or that you have wider hips than average, or bigger breasts or broader shoulders etc..

My girlfriends clothes can vary from UK size 12 to 16 (US 8 to 12) depending on the cut and the shop she's buying it from.

**cincydooley**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

Really? Because not too long ago the media was calling her fat.

Don't know about you but she looks okay to me.

I mean, I wouldn't call her fit.....

A 12 isn't small. If it's "average" it's only because there are that many people that are way above that to make 'average' scale up.

Of course, there are always outliers. Gabby Reece was famously a size 10 and weighed 170 lbs. She was also 6'3.

**-Shrike-**

cincydooley wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
When fat becomes the average it doesn't make it healthy or right.

And when the perception of what is "fat" changes thanks to anorexic models?

You mean people who were normal are now considered fat? I disagree with your claim.

Really? Because not too long ago the media was calling her fat.

Don't know about you but she looks okay to me.

I mean, I wouldn't call her fit.....

A 12 isn't small. If it's "average" it's only because there are that many people that are way above that to make 'average' scale up.

Of course, there are always outliers. Gabby Reece was famously a size 10 and weighed 170 lbs. She was also 6'3.

I could write a reply, but it's easier to say I agree with everything cincy said.

**cincydooley**

I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."

I wear a 38, but am nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.

Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.

**Medium of Death**

cincydooley wrote:
I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."

I wear a 38, but and nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.

Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.

So much this.

There's a massive online presence of people wanting to change the medically established norm because of their feelings.

I'm 6' with a 34-36 waist. I need to loose weight, i'm aware of that. I'm sitting near borderline on BMI so I need to come down a notch.

I'm not about to start advocating a beer based lifestyle with no exercise. Although I think it would probably take off really well.

**Easy E**

I thought this thread was going to be about subway stations.

**welshhoppo**

We call them Oxo's.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

BMI as a classification system is pretty gak l though and has lead to many people in the UK being labelled as obese despite being quite clearly healthy (or more accurately not fat, for their height and build).

**master of ordinance**

Its a conspiracy!

The fattiearchy are out to get us thinnies!

**trexmeyer**

cincydooley wrote:I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."

I wear a 38, but am nearly 6'1, and I'm not in great shape, and certainly need to lose some weight. I own that. I recognize that. I'm not pushing for dudes that look like me to be on the cover of Men's Fitness or in Calvin Klein's next underwear ad. Gross.

Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.

I'm 6' and I wear a 32" and I'm trying to cut down to 30"...apparently I'm anorexic...

Things I've learned from this thread:

1) Meghan Trainor isn't overweight even though she is visibly chubby/fat...
2) Having a thigh gap indicates that someone is unhealthy and starving themselves
3) Consensus truth is alive and well

**hotsauceman1**

Meagan Trainor does not look fat or even chubby.
at least unhealthy so

**Albatross**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Meagan Trainor does not look fat or even chubby.
at least unhealthy so

I find her to be fully minging. I wouldn't touch her with a stolen one.

**MrDwhitey**

I'm proud of my 42 inch waist at 5 foot 10.

Frankly I should stop slimming though, it's becoming unhealthy.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The Advertising Standards Authority enforces standards in advertising.

If you are worried about the government enforcing body image, do not move to Japan, where every year you will be scolded by doctors for being too fat if your waist measurement is higher than the government appointed level.

If I were Japan, my doctor would have to immediately commit seppuku.

Is it wrong that I immediately pictured tiny Japanese men in lab coats and hardhats running away pointing and screaming "Frazzilla, FRAZZILLAAAAAA!"

**dogma**

cincydooley wrote:
I mean, the average male pant size in America is a size 38 for a dude that is 5'9."

Clothing sizes are probably not the best way to gauge who is, and who is not, overweight. That's even worse than BMI.

cincydooley wrote:

Basically, I'm saying our "average" is "overweight" and as someone else put earlier in the thread, that's sad.

I'm 5'9 ~190, with ~8% body fat; at least according to a week old hydrostatic measurement. I also have a 34" waistline and would be considered overweight by many of the popular metrics, despite being able to run 10 miles in 1.5 hours.

Though it must be said that there is a body of research suggesting that carrying too much mass, of any kind, is hazardous to one's long-term health.

Albatross wrote:

I find her to be fully minging. I wouldn't touch her with a stolen one.

I look at her and see Tracy Turnblad without the plucky charm.

**His Master's Voice**

dogma wrote:
Though it must be said that there is a body of research suggesting that carrying too much mass, of any kind, is hazardous to one's long-term health.

That's only true if your lifestyle does not account for the extra mass.

**dogma**

His Master's Voice wrote:

That's only true if your lifestyle does not account for the extra mass.

The argument that is generally made is that overweight people tend to live shorter lives, even controlling for body fat percentage. What hasn't been adequately controlled for is that fact that overweight, active people tend to use steroids and supplements at a higher rate than overweight, inactive people; they also generally engage in a larger number of risky recreational activities.

**trexmeyer**

I'm seeing a lot of before and after thigh gap photos...and most of them involve a fat/chubby girl going down to a healthier size without being too skinny. Not seeing the problem here. Might be NSFW.

Spoiler:

It looks like many women can naturally have a thigh gap at a perfectly healthy size...so what is that hate about? This is a far cry from thinspo/proana.

**PhantomViper**

Albatross wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Meagan Trainor does not look fat or even chubby.
at least unhealthy so

I find her to be fully minging. I wouldn't touch her with a stolen one.

No idea what "minging" means, but she is definitively fat.

**Medium of Death**

PhantomViper wrote:
Albatross wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Meagan Trainor does not look fat or even chubby.
at least unhealthy so

I find her to be fully minging. I wouldn't touch her with a stolen one.

No idea what "minging" means, but she is definitively fat.

Disgusting, repulsive, ugly etc

**Kilkrazy**

Thigh gap is when a women stands upright with knees touching and there is a gap between her thighs.

None of the possibly NSFW photos show thigh gap. They show a young woman who has lost some weight but still has fat on her thighs. (Which is pretty normal for women.)

**SlaveToDorkness**

Clearly we need more research material to make a determination...

**BobtheInquisitor**

Huh. I honestly prefer the before shots in most of those photos.