Is this Plus Size?

[Aucald]

Yeah I get what you are saying, I am not picking any bones with you, I am just suggesting in terms of accuracy how that jives, fitness models as an example aren't considered normal per say in terms to the same light. I mean no guys look like Arnold back in the day that is why they are Arnold, and those he competed against aren't normal.

So My question no so much to really you, but more just to ponder, how the hell is this high fashion considered normal. Yes, I get it,"it's fashion" but fashion unlike I said Fitness modeling isn't about how you could look, Fashion is about how you do look.

If most normal women or men look like this in terms a weight, isn't that what's normal?

"Normal" is both relative and a social construct - in both reality and the fashion world it has varied over the ages. It was not so long ago that extra weight was viewed as highly attractive, as it denoted class and wealth (e.g. the ability to eat calorie-dense food with frequency). You can see this in art from those time periods, such as with Rubens and Brueghel, who lauded what we would refer to as physical excess. We don't really even have a firm grasp on what body type overall is actually healthiest, as people of course vary in terms of both metabolic rate, strength, and genetic health. "Normal" in this context is a sliding scale of environmental factors, trends, fads, and social cues.

That being said, I think the fashion industry's take on "normal" is pretty unrealistic and unsustainable on a personal level for most people. My perspective tends to view what is healthy and "best" as a personal thing - the weight and fitness level in which a person both feels and performs at an optimal level for their lifestyle and overall health. A happy medium that doesn't require undue maintenance to keep and doesn't endanger a person's health (either via the slings and arrows of being overweight or underweight, as the case may be).

[conceptKitty]

There is no universal "plus size" definition. Modeling agencies, clothing manufactures and even individuals have their own standards. To me, overweight is plus sized.

Gwendolyn Christie is plus size too with her being rather large in height and built even though she's not overweight.

[Spectral]

I wouldn't go that far, I mean women shouldn't look any more like her than say Adele or that Rapper women in the new recently, I mean most dudes don't look anything like say Brad Pitt, or some of these Actors that are supposed to represent average men either.

I think there is a contrast between obviously overweight and unhealthy, and plus size.

Sure, but Brad Pitt is an ideal. That's fine! Brad Pitt's a better looking dude than I am. There's nothing wrong with there being aesthetic ideals that aren't something most people will achieve, the same way there's nothing wrong with there being physical performance ideals normal people won't achieve. This chick is a great aspirational aesthetic for girls that are tall and thickly built.

Kate Moss should be consider Petite Size?

I don't think her build was healthy in her prime, so I don't think it's great to idealize. Everyone's going to have different preferences, but idealizing Paige VanZant seems about good to me for petite women.





Edit - Of course, I'm partial to idealizing athletes rather than models, so YMMV.

[Ayirasi]

In some photos I researched for science... maybe? She seems to model a lot of stuff with high waists, and that usually distorts the proportions and gives a woman mom ass. Those things should be banned. Upon closer inspection, the only thing I'm seeing that's "plus size" are her eyebrows. One of the few photos I found of her butt looked... pretty good.

[Jotaux]

Plus size as compared to what though

Compared to models.

[Rozz]

Plus size is an interesting label when you aren't actually discussing fat. Your bust or height can push you into that range with some brands. I have to diet just to stay in my bracket, rip.

[Goldielocks]

The need to call them any size is pointless. Models model clothing. How exactly are you going to tell what clothing looks like on you if you're not a size 0? There should be models of every kind.

"Normal" is both relative and a social construct - in both reality and the fashion world it has varied over the ages. It was not so long ago that extra weight was viewed as highly attractive, as it denoted class and wealth (e.g. the ability to eat calorie-dense food with frequency). You can see this in art from those time periods, such as with Rubens and Brueghel, who lauded what we would refer to as physical excess.

You have the idea right, but the underlying conclusion you're making is not right, at least in my opinion. Following evolutionary psychology, people are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics that denote survival. The human condition didn't evolve to handle our intelligence so it often clashes with our more innate desires. Bigger people were seen as more attractive because in their minds those people were more likely to live longer, have families and have a higher chance of passing on their genes successfully.

In the modern era, that's where this all gets confusing. If most people regardless of body fat percentage can denote survival, then what does? Harder to answer. Some say it's just money, but general tendencies of what hetero men and women prefer in their partner exist.

That being said, it's only theory. Others believe that social psychology completely undermines this but I don't agree with that. Doesn't make sense really.

We don't really even have a firm grasp on what body type overall is actually healthiest, as people of course vary in terms of both metabolic rate, strength, and genetic health. "Normal" in this context is a sliding scale of environmental factors, trends, fads, and social cues.

This is also not exactly true. In medicine, normal is a range that defines the group of people correlated with the lowest morbidity rates (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc). Underweight and overweight ranges both have higher mortality rates.

[Aucald]

You have the idea right, but the underlying conclusion you're making is not right, at least in my opinion. Following evolutionary psychology, people are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics that denote survival. The human condition didn't evolve to handle our intelligence so it often clashes with our more innate desires. Bigger people were seen as more attractive because in their minds those people were more likely to live longer, have families and have a higher chance of passing on their genes successfully.

In the modern era, that's where this all gets confusing. If most people regardless of body fat percentage can denote survival, then what does? Harder to answer. Some say it's just money, but general tendencies of what hetero men and women prefer in their partner exist.

That being said, it's only theory. Others believe that social psychology completely undermines this but I don't agree with that. Doesn't make sense really.

I think the main fallacy in the determination of sexual attraction is the misunderstanding that it necessarily need arise from any single course or direction, as it were. Does evolutionary psychology play a role in what we are attracted to? I'd say "absolutely," but it's not the only influence that directs us in that sense, nor is it otherwise overriding or the most important. Social psychology plays a definitive role, as well, as does personal preference and developmental context. There's no single vector that that directs this process in an objective sense, it is more a complex matrix of interconnected influences that are at once both deeply personal and practically unintelligible (even to the individual experiencing said attraction).

This is also not exactly true. In medicine, normal is a range that defines the group of people correlated with the lowest morbidity rates (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc). Underweight and overweight ranges both have higher mortality rates.

This is science that has shifted and changed over time, and we are finding all the time that certain correlations we always assumed were causative may well not be. As a general guideline I would say this is true, but I think everyone pretty much knows that. The real question lies in what specifically is "underweight" or "overweight," and what the determinations are relative to. If all humans shared the same genetics, baseline skeletal structures, and muscle density we'd have a firmer grasp on what is baseline here - but human beings are not so easily comparable. Nominal weight can therefore be quite varied, depending on one's body type, metabolic rate, certain generic factors, and overall endocrine health. Your ideal weight is therefore kind of relative.

[Goldielocks]

I think the main fallacy in the determination of sexual attraction is the misunderstanding that it necessarily need arise from any single course or direction, as it were. Does evolutionary psychology play a role in what we are attracted to? I'd say "absolutely," but it's not the only influence that directs us in that sense, nor is it otherwise overriding or the most important. Social psychology plays a definitive role, as well, as does personal preference and developmental context. There's no single vector that that directs this process in an objective sense, it is more a complex matrix of interconnected influences that are at once both deeply personal and practically unintelligible (even to the individual experiencing said attraction).

See but that's debatable because there are trends in what people like. Something is causing that. We're animals just like any other. They have trends and so do we. Perhaps there are multiple causes at once that cause this trend but that would be kind of an insane thought that one trend has so many causes that lead to the same result. I believe it's far less complicated than some would believe.

This is science that has shifted and changed over time, and we are finding all the time that certain correlations we always assumed were causative may well not be. As a general guideline I would say this is true, but I think everyone pretty much knows that. The real question lies in what specifically is "underweight" or "overweight," and what the determinations are relative to. If all humans shared the same genetics, baseline skeletal structures, and muscle density we'd have a firmer grasp on what is baseline here - but human beings are not so easily comparable. Nominal weight can therefore be quite varied, depending on one's body type, metabolic rate, certain generic factors, and overall endocrine health. Your ideal weight is therefore kind of relative.

I'd argue this is more for the outliers. The average person usually deals with these things the same way. It's why we use averages for drug doses, etc.

But in the case for justifying being a higher weight, if someone is that way and has no health condition then yes it's fine. However that's not as common, because the average person has average genetics, not bad ones. In the same way that some people can eat what they want and remain ripped. Godlike genes just don't come around often.

[Aucald]

See but that's debatable because there are trends in what people like. Something is causing that. We're animals just like any other. They have trends and so do we. Perhaps there are multiple causes at once that cause this trend but that would be kind of an insane thought that one trend has so many causes that lead to the same result. I believe it's far less complicated than some would believe.

I think the trends actually more point to that notion as opposed to detracting from it. Animals don't really have or follow trends - not in any social sense. Complexity, too, is a matter of context - the origins of how we are attracted to other people may be complex, but how we handle that attraction need not be. Perversely, at least in my experience, human beings are prone to over-analyze the process of dealing of attraction and under-analyze the origins of attraction. We are nothing if not ironic.

I'd argue this is more for the outliers. The average person usually deals with these things the same way. It's why we use averages for drug doses, etc.

But in the case for justifying being a higher weight, if someone is that way and has no health condition then yes it's fine. However that's not as common, because the average person has average genetics, not bad ones. In the same way that some people can eat what they want and remain ripped. Godlike genes just don't come around often.

That really depends on the drugs in question, though; as many drugs, especially the more potent ones, have to have their dosage dialed in via trial and error (sometimes with negative results for the patient). I'm not really justifying any specific weight here, only advocating for the notion that the ideal weight doesn't really have a baseline beyond the personal and that our tendency to single out surface traits is a bad way of making this determination. Obviously the extremes are easily recognized and equally a problem, from the people who can barely move about due to their weight to those whose skeletons seem poised to burst through their tightly wrapped flesh. But in the vast middle grounds from having what appears to be a bit of extra baggage to being athletically trim and fit you'll find any number of cases where weight is healthy and nominal for the specific person.

[Mistame]

Gwendolyn Christie is plus size too with her being rather large in height and built even though she's not overweight.

Depending on the context, height sometimes counts in that category. Eg, "Big and Tall", for men.

This is also not exactly true. In medicine, normal is a range that defines the group of people correlated with the lowest morbidity rates (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc). Underweight and overweight ranges both have higher mortality rates.

Casual conversation is a far cry from a scientific discussion. Interestingly, in the vernacular, people tend to use "normal" and "average" interchangeably, which is worrisome as it normalizes being overweight.

[PC2]

For a model she is plus size since she'd be more attractive if she was at the same height but was less thick.

Recognizing this doesn't at all mean that people should feel shame it just means that people have aesthetic values that favor slender women.

[urasim]

Ok what about this guy I added him to the OP, but I am curious he is no Superman, but would you call him Plus Size?


Zach Miko

Plus sized means nothing. He's taller than most. Thus he's plus sized on height alone.

Zach is also obese. Extremely unhealthy. But that's slowly becoming the norm. So, he's not really plus sized in that regard.

[Ghostpanther]

Of course not. Most people are not models.

Zach looks pretty typical of a lot of males. I would not call him a plus size however. Plus size is a polite term for those who are very overweight. He may be some overweight ( hard to tell with that picture ), but I have seen a lot more who are then him.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus sized means nothing. He's taller than most. Thus he's plus sized on height alone.

Zach is also obese. Extremely unhealthy. But that's slowly becoming the norm. So, he's not really plus sized in that regard.

He must be much bigger than he is in that pic then. He is certainly not obese in it. John Candy was a example of a man being obese.

[Xirrohon]

Plus size doesnt always mean fat. Both of those two, especially the lady are big in the legs and hips. In that way I would agree they are plus sized. I dont think they are fat though.

[Cizr]

Its not plus size in real world but it is plus size in modeling world

[Neenaw]

How tall is she? How broad are her shoulders?

Looks a big dame to me but need more perspective.

[Spectral]

He must be much bigger than he is in that pic then. He is certainly not obese in it. John Candy was a example of a man being obese.

Looks like he's a fat dude:



He certainly dresses well, so it's usually not obvious in modeling shots that a quick Google images shows. People seem to find him attractive, so good for him, but he definitely is a fat dude.

[BeepBoo]

I need to see more pictures that are just candid like that one of the guy above to judge the girl, but I'd say she's verging on "plus size."

First issue, people see "plus sized" and instantly get offended. Being bigger than a fit person carrying an excess body fat makes you plus size to me. "A little overweight" is synonymous with plus size. Stop arguing over degrees of fatness. It's pointless. It doesn't mean you're ugly or glaringly obese.

The guy is obviously fat, even if he's not huge.

For me, it's better to just go straight to actual hard facts, though. Weight, height, body fat %.
Stop getting caught up on labels and correlating them to negative or positive. Some people like fat ladies. Some people like skinnier. Some people share my view that too skinny is just as bad as too fat.



This is a more normal pose of Jill Kortleve without any glam tricks or anything to cover stuff up. She isn't huge, but she definitely has excess fat.

[Unholyground]

I'd agree with her being "plus" if we're not using "plus" as just a euphemism for being fat. She's obviously larger framed than a typical woman and is much thicker bodied than a typical model. That said, pictures where she's in less attire make it clear that she's in good shape:



I'd say she represents a legitimate ideal appearance for women that are thicker bodied than typical models. I'd probably go as far as to say this is what a "plus-sized" model should be - not just a fat girl demanding that people say she's beautiful, but a bigger framed woman that's beautiful in a different way than more slender counterparts.

That is what a normal woman body looks like so no not plus sized lmao.