agamemnonymous comments on What is skinny

What is skinny (feddit.dk)

submitted 2 weeks ago by stenAanden@feddit.dk to c/curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 91 points 2 weeks ago (36 children)

I don't think "skinny" is being used correctly here, which seems to be the whole source of conflict.

Taylor Swift isn't skinny. She certainly isn't overweight, but skinny doesn't mean "not overweight", it means thinner than average. It's the opposite extreme of fat, with the norm being somewhere between. Taylor Swift is in the normal range. Emma Stone is skinny.

If you're using "skinny" to mean "not fat", obviously there's going to be some disagreement with those who use "skinny" to mean "thinner than normal".

hideshow 36 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 80 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

Taylor Swift is (supposedly) 5’10" and around 130lbs.

That is skinny. Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think it depends on where you live too, skinny (as in thinner than average) being a relative measure.

I live somewhere extremely skinny by global standards and she wouldn't be called skinny, people might say, "yeah I guess she's skinny" if asked, but she wouldn't be seen as "a skinny person" because she wouldn't be far off the average. Same way a 5'8 woman wouldn't be a "tall woman" in the Netherlands.

parent

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah I'm around that height and I'd lose my adhd meds if I showed up to a doctor weighing that without a damn good reason

parent

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Still seems like a definitional problem, with an imprecise meaning behind the word "skinny."

Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.

Bordering on, but still on the "normal" side of the chart.

Does "skinny" look to broad population averages, or celebrity averages, or even celebrity averages for that particular age, or some kind of ideal? Is "skinny" a pejorative, negatively loaded term?

I wouldn't call Taylor Swift "skinny" if that's intended to mean thinner than ideal. But she is thinner than the American average. Is the American average considered "fat"? How much of a gap is there between skinny and fat, occupied by people who are neither?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago

Is “skinny” a pejorative, negatively loaded term?

Not in our society. Skinny is seen as the ideal.

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago* (9 children)

BMI is a terrible metric, and even then her BMI is on the lower end of the normal range.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

Oh I'm aware. That's why I threw in that even according to the faulty BMI scale for women, Taylor Swift is considered bordering on underweight to being underweight.

That you think Taylor Swift isn't skinny says way more about you than anything else.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Her weight has fluctuated, like most normal people. When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130. Certainly not in the reference photo, which is probably the fullest I've seen her. There are plenty of photos where you could make the argument, but they look much more like the "exaggerated" sketch anyway. She is not skinny in the reference photo provided.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130.

She was unhealthily underweight at 115.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Anon7394@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

Aka "skinny"

And unhealthily overweight = "fat"

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wow you cleared up all the confusion immediately with this really clear definition of skinny and fat! WHHOOOAAAA WOWWWEEE /s

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anon7394@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

Skinny = unhealthily underweight.

Fat = unhealthily overweight

Anyone not fitting in the above two categories is "normal".

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 weeks ago

Correct. You could divide "normal" up a bit more with adjectives like "slender" or "husky", but "skinny" and "fat" are on the unhealthy side.

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Correct.

parent

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone -2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah it says I know skinny women

parent

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

From the photo she would appear to weight more than 130lbs (for 5 10 height). My one daughter is 130 at 5' 8" and looks much skinnier than TS

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It’s almost like everyone’s body is different or something. Weird.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] blackshirt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

It's almost like celebrities don't lie about their weight or height.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Taylor Swift isn’t plus sized.

parent

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

If it is true she's 130 at 5 10, she must have really low muscle mass

parent

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

In the context of the post they clearly were using “skinny” to mean “not plus sized”.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This is like saying 2 = 3 because 2 != 4.

This yellow firetruck is red because it is not blue.

The aircraft is grounded because it is not flying at above 20k feet.

Etc.

Skinny literally means 'thin or very thin'.

It does not mean 'not plus size'.

Look up any English dictionary's definition.

They way OP from the image used the word was nonsensical.

The only thing that is 'literally skinny' is the drawn-as-skinny figure, based on the picture of Swift, who is herself not skinny.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Language is a tool for communication. It requires interpretation. The meme uses language to try to get a point across, and adds illustrations to further enhance understanding. I’m sorry that the imprecise language made you unable to comprehend the point of the post, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

Discuss the ideas communicated or go off and sulk because you can’t comprehend, but all this whining about the language is beyond stupid. If you don’t wanna talk about beauty standards you can quietly excuse yourself. This adds less than nothing to the conversation.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Language is a tool for communication. It requires interpretation.

A hammer is a tool for putting nails into things, if you hammer your finger with it instead, you're doing it wrong.

Every person in this thread who objects to the use of the word is proof on its face that this person has at least nicked their finger on the way down.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

More crying over a word. Wow, interesting dialogue we’re having instead of talking about society we get to hear you whine about a word. Good talk lemmy, real fun.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Considering the argument hinges on whether "skinny" applies equally to the person and the sketch? Kind of a vital point.

Also? Bitching and moaning about artstyles being problematic? Not my definition of fun, but you do you.

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Right, that's the problem. They were using the word in a way that's inconsistent with the dictionary definition, causing confusion.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

That is not a problem except for men who are way more interested being pedantic over semantics than they are in talking about a visual phenomenon. And then then, almost all of them are being dishonest.

There's no real confusion. Anyone who can rub some brain cells together can figure out what was meant. The context is visually demonstrated. It's unmissable since you have to look at it to even know it's time to get uppity about Taylor Swift being called skinny and then pretending like OF COURSE Taylor Swift looks plus size in drawing format since she's not skinny!

This is just straight up a situation where a bunch of neckbeards just want to comment their opinion on a woman's body while pretending like they're upholding the strict rules of language and meaning against unwashed hordes.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That is not a problem except for men who are way more interested being pedantic over semantics than they are in talking about a visual phenomenon.

Hi, I'm autistic.

What you call pedantry, I call accuracy, precision and consistency in communication.

If you want to use words in a way where they have multiple different possible meanings that are context dependent, you can do that, but its always going to be confusing for me and probably most other male autists, unless there are clear and consistent guidelines as to which context should connote which specific, similar but substantially different meaning.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

But there is clear and obvious context. It's unmissable. You have to look at it before even getting any inkling of an idea that there's an ambiguous word. This is picture with a guided series of posts and a visual demonstration of what is being discussed. Even with the autism you describe here, it requires purposefully ignoring the context in order to go down this path of fixation of confusing what the word used in the demonstration means, which in turn requires a desire to ignore talking about the actual point to instead focus on best defining how to describe women's bodies.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago*

Words aside, the demonstration is just adding together relatively small errors that add up to something that looks significant. The sides of the dress are loose around her torso in the reference photo but form-fitting in the sketch, the overlaid sketch is scaled too small and doesn't match her pose, extending her lowered neck and leveling her angled shoulders. Adjusting the scale, and accounting for the draping in the outfit and the pose of her head and shoulders, there really isn't any difference other than the arms being drawn too long.

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

No one said Taylor Swift was plus sized. She is a relatively thin, but healthy weight in that picture.

The whole post was about the "expectation" of skinny people in art. They then proceeded to trace a thin, but not skinny, person in loose clothing.

Not that there aren't body positivity issues in the world, but this post itself seems dishonest overall in its premise and execution.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

The whole point being demonstrated is that someone who is obviously not plus sized in real life will read as plus sized when their silhouette is traced into a drawing. It doesn't matter if they are semantically skinny, thin, or normal, only that they are not plus sized but will be when traced.

So what is the dishonesty you're suddenly detecting? That Taylor Swift is actually not skinny therefore this illusion doesn't work? It's a visual illusion you're claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint. Otherwise this is just throwing things at a wall to see if it will stick. After all, that outfit is clearly not loose fitting, as we can clearly see in the image.

Again, all this "confusion" and "problem" you're detecting are just neckbeards arguing about anything except the actual visual illusion because commenting on the exact right verbiage to categorize women's bodies into is more interesting to them than, you know, visually demonstrating why a theorized visual illusion does not hold.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a visual illusion you're claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint

The outfit is not as tight fitting as the drawing on the right, and the pose doesn't help. We can all clearly see it in the image. There are plenty of images of her that would look slim even when traced.

I can't upload an image for some reason, but here's a good example.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

The drawing on the right, as in the stylized "skinny" one from the comparison drawings? The difference between those two side-by-side pictures is the body, not the tightness of the outfit. Again, the one on the left is traced from the actual photograph. Look at the actual photograph of Taylor Swift in that post. Where do you see a bunch of loose fabric in that oufit's torso? Do you actually think Taylor Swift is swimming in that outfit since she's actually as skinny as she was 13 years ago? Just her legs alone, which are not under that dress, will clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Of course a picture of a much skinnier Taylor Swift will look skinnier than one of a less skinny Taylor Swift. But that has nothing to do with the visual illusion described being apparently dishonest, which was your last assertion after you moved on from the semantics being the whole problem. This has taken quite a journey since your original assertion.

All of this is proving my point that this entire post is only a problem for guys who just want to argue about a woman's body instead of the visual illusion. Not a single person who is arguing about "skinny" vs. "thin" semantics is demonstrating a single thing about how it affects the theorized illusion, that clearly isn't their interest. To them, this post is just an avenue to share "valid opinions" on the right way to describe women's bodies.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The difference between those two side-by-side pictures is the body, not the tightness of the outfit.

Incorrect. Well, you are right in that the body proportions on the right are off compared to the overlay which exacerbates the discrepancy (we'll circle back to that), but the tightness is absolutely different.

Where do you see a bunch of loose fabric in that oufit's torso?

I'm using the bottom photo, with the "skinny" overlay for reference.

Basically the entire white triangle at the far left (her right) above the waist is loose. If you mark her waist at the halfway point between the "skinny" sketch and the photo, that's where her actual waist is. The right (her left) side isn't as egregious, but a significant fraction of the gold portion between the skinny sketch and the photo is loose.

Add to it that, especially with the sequins, the outfit is a relatively thick material, and the discrepancy starts to fade.

Do you actually think Taylor Swift is swimming in that outfit since she's actually as skinny as she was 13 years ago?

I really don't know what you're asking here. I think that the areas where the outfit is loose (at least looser than the skintight skinny sketch) make her waist and torso look bigger than it actually is.

Of course a picture of a much skinnier Taylor Swift will look skinnier than one of a less skinny Taylor Swift.

This is my point. It's only "much skinnier" and "less skinny" when it's a comparison. I'm by no means skinny, but I'm much skinnier than fat people. "Much skinnier" Swift is arguably skinny, "less skinny" Swift is indeed less skinny than skinny Swift, but she is not skinny.

But that has nothing to do with the visual illusion described being apparently dishonest, which was your last assertion

Let's address that directly then. Leaving semantics aside (since I would barely qualify the skinny sketch as "skinny" anyway) the looseness of the outfit that obscures her actual figure gets us about halfway to matching the sketch to start. But that's just one of several factors that contribute to the "illusion". The other factors can be attributed to the pose and scale.

In the original photo, Swift is mid stride. The rotation of her shoulders is notably more extreme than the sketch, which makes them appear narrower as a reference, and that screws up the proportions. Look at her right (our left) shoulder with the overlay, the angle isn't even close between the two, either rotationally or vertically.

Her head is also bent down, making her neck look shorter, which is not reflected in the sketch, further screwing up the proportions throughout the whole thing.

And then the knees. The very top of her patella is below where the very bottom of the sketch's patella would be.

So the shoulders are lower and less angled in the sketch than in the photo, the knees are higher in the sketch than in the photo, and the head is angled in a way that hides the length of the neck. Taken collectively, this is clear evidence that the skinny sketch is scaled too small in the overlay.

If you scaled it up to actually match her body in the photo, and accounted for the looseness of her outfit around her ribcage, the illusion is negligible. The illusion comes from choosing a highly dynamic pose, not reproducing the pose faithfully, and making the outfit in the sketch skintight when the actual outfit is not.

I can't speak for the purely argumentative neckbeards, but I have seen many women of many body shapes both clothed and unclothed, and autistically recognized the difference in silhouette. Additionally, I've done a fair bit of research into anatomical sketching and sewing; more than I've done actual sketching and sewing unfortunately, but I can recognize the relevant issues.

This "illusion" comes from a number of small discrepancies that add up to something that looks significant. Additionally, it is a single, still and, I reiterate, highly dynamic picture. We've seen a thousand pictures and videos of Swift, which means we can construct a mental model which accounts for various outfits and poses.

I didn't want to be mean to OOP, but this is a skill issue as an artist, and a very poor choice of photo to make this point.

parent