This beauty contest finalist weighs 10 stone, which Bob at The Drawn Cutlass tells us is about 160 pounds. Sadly, I don’t think this could happen in the United States and my cynical side believes that even in Britain the recent fondness for dowdy singers and chunky beauty queens is merely a fad, a moment of self-congratulation for not being shallow followers of fashion.
Honestly, I have to admit that I prefer to look at thin people and I’d like to be one myself. Is that because Hollywood and the fashion industry present thin people in a way that is pleasing to the eye, making thinness the ideal that we all wish for? If we always saw thin people in frumpy, ill-fitting, unfashionable clothes would we laugh at them and worry about eating enough so we wouldn’t be “too thin”? Or, are we just naturally pre-wired to like thinness? It seems that we are pre-wired to like what is most difficult to achieve. When only wealthy people could afford enough food to be fat generous curves were considered beautiful.
(Updated)
May 27th, 2009 - 7:53 am
I thought 1 stone = 14 pounds. Which is still bigger than the typical pageant winner, but is lighter.
I think it’s the whole “marker of wealth” thing, as you said: whatever is hard to achieve is desirable. I’d even go so far as to speculate if there’s some old sexual-selection (in the Darwinian sense) going on: female birds tend to choose the most brightly colored males, even though bright color is a distinct disadvantage (it is more obvious to predators, and it takes energy to make attractive plumage). Perhaps what we’re responding to is, “Wow, that person seems to put in a lot of effort on their appearance; they must have an easy life otherwise”
I don’t know. I do know I could do with fewer “OMG you are going to die, like, SO soon if you’re carrying even five pounds over the insurance tables!” news stories. Surely the stress of trying to live up to a body image that most people can’t easily achieve is unhealthy as well?
I will say in some cases there is backlash against the extremely (unhealthily) thin; I’ve seen magazine covers pointing out this or that actress who’s ribs are showing way too much and commenting that she needs to do something to make herself healthier.
May 27th, 2009 - 8:15 pm
She ain’t chunky or dowdy. In fact, she’s probably square on her BMI line! I think she could be a head-turner in public. 10st isn’t heavy.
May 28th, 2009 - 12:43 pm
Actually, looking at her photo, helps to show why presenting weight as a simple number (or as a BMI) can be pretty useless.
I’m sure if I told folks my weight without them seeing me or knowing me they’d figure I was a few pounds away from needing an electric cart to move around through the wal-mart, because of how prejudiced we are about female weight, where anything over 140 or so is ZOMG FATZ! But I regularly “outrun” students 20 years my junior in the field, and I can lift and carry heavy things, and do stuff like repair my own roof if I have to.
It really ticks me off that I get so hung up on the number the scale reads. But I think it’s a common problem in our society.
May 29th, 2009 - 3:10 pm
Fillyjonk is right, 10 stone = 140 lbs. She looks to me more like a Renoir than like a Rubens. And that’s just fine.
May 29th, 2009 - 8:16 pm
Thanks for the art link. I just went to Artcyclopedia and searched for paintings with the word “Venus” in the title. It seemed like the quickest way to find a painting that illustrated the point I wanted to make.
June 4th, 2009 - 1:11 am
For some of us, generous curves are still considered beautiful.
I prefer my women “cuddly-looking”, and I’m not unique.