It’s like they’ve never seen women’s bodies in real life before. If Taylor fucking Swift isn’t considered skinny, then I guess the rest of womanhood can go yeet ourselves off of cliffs. She’s practically underweight and it still isn’t skinny enough.
Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant. They could be thinking: Taylor is thin sure, but not too thin, so not skinny. Skinny would be firmly in the underweight category using this definition; a sleight on their weight and not something to aspire to.
In the pursuit of continuing to be charitable, I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused.
“Not skinny” does not mean “fat” necessarily, in the same way “not tall” does not necessarily mean “short”, or “not cold” isn’t the same as “hot”. It’s a continuum with a middle ground that’s the assumed “default” so there are terms describing deviation from that middle. In common language, “not” preceding the term that describes that deviation tends to mean it falls within the default range, as if they meant it fell outside the range in the other direction they’d just use the term for that part of the range instead.
In this case, the assumed middle is the range of weights deemed “normal” so fat and skinny describe those body types that fall outside that range. Saying someone isn’t skinny does not equate to saying they’re fat since thay can be neither (and that’s typically what’s meant).
No offence meant, but I think you’re misinterpreting that line wrong though.
When they say “skinny as the opposite of fat” they don’t just mean “not fat” - and ergo are calling her fat. They are saying skinny is the polar opposite of fat.
Basically, from their point of view, if you call someone skinny you are saying they are underweight (as in an unhealthy weight), just as if you call someone fat you are implying they are overweight. And they don’t think Taylor Swift is skinny at all. Thin in a healthy way, but not skinny.
Language is weird and I’m not always great at explaining things, but hopefully that made sense.
Without knowing too much about Taylor Swift, I assume she’s much more fit than the average person, and muscle weighs more than fat, so her weight might even be a bit misleading here, compared most people.
I would say she’s more fit than skinny. She’s definitely been skinny and too skinny, but I think she gained a lot of muscle before and during her Eras Tour, making her look less skinny in that picture there.
But, it’s problematic to even discuss her weight like this, and it just puts unnecessary pressure on other people, who might see her as skinny.
I’ve been 125 at 5’9", that was my weight after I recovered from disordered eating and until my husband asked me to bulk, so from 20 years old to about 48. Nobody really commented that I was too thin (except husband), I looked slender not skinny skinny, was in shape, worked out. More cardio less weights.
90 lb when having trouble from 16 to 20 - that looked skinny and surely wasn’t healthy but I still got my period.
150 now since gaining - aimed for 145, overshot. Still aiming for 145 finally making progress, slowly. People STILL think I am thin. I am not. This is more than I weighed 9 months pregnant and honestly it freaks me out a little. Doctor says it’s a healthy weight still though.
ETA - 125 at 5’9" is barely even underweight by BMI. 128 lands in Normal territory.
I think it’s a cultural thing, some places people just have lower BMI’s genetically or dietarily (is that a word?).
I’m considered skinny at 6’4 130lbs, but all of my friends who are all a little underweight or “barely healthy” according to BMI wouldn’t, they’d just be considered thin, since the median weight is much lower than in, say, the US.
Yes, I googled and found similar numbers that would put her at a BMI of 19, which is indeed almost underweight. I don’t buy the numbers though. I mean look at the thighs in that picture. She’s definitely bigger than the majority of the women at my work, and they’re about normal weight. I’d put her at around a BMI of 25 or 174.5 lbs. Not overweight, but definitely not skinny.
Consider the camera angles here as well. The camera is shooting from slightly below which puts emphasis on her thighs and hips with the slight lens distortion.
She’s definitely bigger than the majority of the women at my work, and they’re about normal weight. I’d put her at around a BMI of 25 or 174.5 lbs
I’m not the one who brought it up, I’m only disagreeing with an argument that was presented to me. The entire post hinges on an agreement that she is skinny. And yeah, the post is rude. I normally never comment on people’s body out of nowhere, and I never even cared about her weight in the first place.
I don’t know how you can say “her face isn’t part of this conversation” when the conversation is about whether somebody looks skinny or not. You brought the camera angle argument up and her face is furthest from the camera, yet it’s still not the face of a skinny person.
I agree that she doesn’t look as underweight in that picture as the stated BMI implies, but there’s no way in hell she has a BMI of 25, i.e. nearly overweight. I have that BMI and I have a clearly visible fat belly, while she looks fit.
She’s not skinny though?
Taylor Swift is (supposedly) 5’10" and around 130lbs.
That is skinny. Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.
I think these people calling Taylor Swift not skinny are just imagining Victoria Secret models.
It’s a range, just like all bodies are on a range, and they don’t seem to get that
It’s like they’ve never seen women’s bodies in real life before. If Taylor fucking Swift isn’t considered skinny, then I guess the rest of womanhood can go yeet ourselves off of cliffs. She’s practically underweight and it still isn’t skinny enough.
Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant. They could be thinking: Taylor is thin sure, but not too thin, so not skinny. Skinny would be firmly in the underweight category using this definition; a sleight on their weight and not something to aspire to.
Do people really think that Taylor Swift is fat?
“not skinny” includes both “fat” and “normal”, though
I was responding to this in particular.
But “not skinny” is not the same as “the opposite of skinny”.
In the pursuit of continuing to be charitable, I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused.
“Not skinny” does not mean “fat” necessarily, in the same way “not tall” does not necessarily mean “short”, or “not cold” isn’t the same as “hot”. It’s a continuum with a middle ground that’s the assumed “default” so there are terms describing deviation from that middle. In common language, “not” preceding the term that describes that deviation tends to mean it falls within the default range, as if they meant it fell outside the range in the other direction they’d just use the term for that part of the range instead.
In this case, the assumed middle is the range of weights deemed “normal” so fat and skinny describe those body types that fall outside that range. Saying someone isn’t skinny does not equate to saying they’re fat since thay can be neither (and that’s typically what’s meant).
Again, I was specifically replying to this line:
No offence meant, but I think you’re misinterpreting that line wrong though.
When they say “skinny as the opposite of fat” they don’t just mean “not fat” - and ergo are calling her fat. They are saying skinny is the polar opposite of fat.
Basically, from their point of view, if you call someone skinny you are saying they are underweight (as in an unhealthy weight), just as if you call someone fat you are implying they are overweight. And they don’t think Taylor Swift is skinny at all. Thin in a healthy way, but not skinny.
Language is weird and I’m not always great at explaining things, but hopefully that made sense.
Plenty of VS models have oomph tho.
No way she’s 130 in that pic. Not saying that’s bad but no way those are the legs of a 130lb 5’10 person
I agree with you that that’s skinny. Definitely thin by any metric.
I know it depends on the body, but at 5’2" when I was 125, I was definitely thin and underfed. Add 8 more inches of height? Wild
Yeah I’ve been 5’3" and 115lbs. I was really unhealthy, underfed, and thin.
It’s bonkers that there is so much support in here for people saying shit like Taylor Swift isn’t skinny.
Without knowing too much about Taylor Swift, I assume she’s much more fit than the average person, and muscle weighs more than fat, so her weight might even be a bit misleading here, compared most people.
I would say she’s more fit than skinny. She’s definitely been skinny and too skinny, but I think she gained a lot of muscle before and during her Eras Tour, making her look less skinny in that picture there.
But, it’s problematic to even discuss her weight like this, and it just puts unnecessary pressure on other people, who might see her as skinny.
Thanks for bringing the whole point of the post back around!
My autism is too strong here. Did not get whether you were sarcastic or not here.
I was being sincere, I promise!
I’ve been 125 at 5’9", that was my weight after I recovered from disordered eating and until my husband asked me to bulk, so from 20 years old to about 48. Nobody really commented that I was too thin (except husband), I looked slender not skinny skinny, was in shape, worked out. More cardio less weights.
90 lb when having trouble from 16 to 20 - that looked skinny and surely wasn’t healthy but I still got my period.
150 now since gaining - aimed for 145, overshot. Still aiming for 145 finally making progress, slowly. People STILL think I am thin. I am not. This is more than I weighed 9 months pregnant and honestly it freaks me out a little. Doctor says it’s a healthy weight still though.
ETA - 125 at 5’9" is barely even underweight by BMI. 128 lands in Normal territory.
I think it’s a cultural thing, some places people just have lower BMI’s genetically or dietarily (is that a word?).
I’m considered skinny at 6’4 130lbs, but all of my friends who are all a little underweight or “barely healthy” according to BMI wouldn’t, they’d just be considered thin, since the median weight is much lower than in, say, the US.
Yes, I googled and found similar numbers that would put her at a BMI of 19, which is indeed almost underweight. I don’t buy the numbers though. I mean look at the thighs in that picture. She’s definitely bigger than the majority of the women at my work, and they’re about normal weight. I’d put her at around a BMI of 25 or 174.5 lbs. Not overweight, but definitely not skinny.
Consider the camera angles here as well. The camera is shooting from slightly below which puts emphasis on her thighs and hips with the slight lens distortion.
This is insane of you.
Fair enough, but that doesn’t explain why her face looks so puffy
Her face isn’t even part of this conversation. You’re just rudely commenting on a woman’s body at this point.
I’m not the one who brought it up, I’m only disagreeing with an argument that was presented to me. The entire post hinges on an agreement that she is skinny. And yeah, the post is rude. I normally never comment on people’s body out of nowhere, and I never even cared about her weight in the first place.
I don’t know how you can say “her face isn’t part of this conversation” when the conversation is about whether somebody looks skinny or not. You brought the camera angle argument up and her face is furthest from the camera, yet it’s still not the face of a skinny person.
I agree that she doesn’t look as underweight in that picture as the stated BMI implies, but there’s no way in hell she has a BMI of 25, i.e. nearly overweight. I have that BMI and I have a clearly visible fat belly, while she looks fit.
deleted by creator