First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!

[Anonymous]

^what we see on the beach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end of an institution. Sad that SI has caved to this sort of pandering.

I'm a straight woman and find this revolting. I have an obese son, who struggles with thyroid issues as well as my family's endocrine issues. I know the pain and health issues he's suffered over the years due to his obesity. It should not be celebrated.

+1 she does not look healthy of beautiful. Not at that weight.
I'm all for real women's bodies but hers is born of eating to excess at the expense of her current and future health.
Why would anyone want to celebrate that ?
A size 8-10 model sure. Obese? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end of an institution. Sad that SI has caved to this sort of pandering.

I'm a straight woman and find this revolting. I have an obese son, who struggles with thyroid issues as well as my family's endocrine issues. I know the pain and health issues he's suffered over the years due to his obesity. It should not be celebrated.

+1 she does not look healthy of beautiful. Not at that weight.
I'm all for real women's bodies but hers is born of eating to excess at the expense of her current and future health.
Why would anyone want to celebrate that ?
A size 8-10 model sure. Obese? No.

I have to agree. She does not look healthy.

[Anonymous]

She looks fabulous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

This is moronic. Several facts:
A) A majority of people in the US are overweight.
B) Losing weight permanently is very, very rare: only 2% lose 20 or more pounds and keep it off for five or more years. Which means that Fact A is unlikely to change.
C) You cannot tell someone's level of health by their weight, and certainly not by a photoshopped photograph.
D) All cover models are photoshopped; here they removed some cellulite and bulges. Skinny models get their protruding bones and lifeless skin fixed. Which means that the umbrage taken by some posters that they've corrected this image is a little misguided.

The dominant narrative in the US is that thin is good, cultured, well-bred, intelligent and beautiful whereas fat is something to be ashamed of. It's bizarro world that some thin people want fat people to feel like absolute shit and never see themselves represented. Fat shaming does not work. Fact shaming seems actually to cause weight gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, good grief! The *average* sized woman in the U.S. is a size 12-14. This lady is a size 16 which is pretty darned close to the average. This woman IS normal and perfectly beautiful.

The much smaller sized women on the covers of SI are also gorgeous but do realize that a size 4 is W-A-Y below average size. Like it or not, size 2 does not represent the average woman.

The average sized woman in the US is overweight through obese...

What's sad is that we now have to choose between showing an average size that's unhealthy, or showing a healthy size that is perceived to be too skinny, because it has become rare and seemingly unattainable, when it's really not.

The photograph is beautiful, but the media should not encourage people to think positively about being overweight. It costs too much for society in quality of life, healthcare expenses and shortening of life expectancy.

This is moronic. Several facts:
A) A majority of people in the US are overweight.
B) Losing weight permanently is very, very rare: only 2% lose 20 or more pounds and keep it off for five or more years. Which means that Fact A is unlikely to change.
C) You cannot tell someone's level of health by their weight, and certainly not by a photoshopped photograph.
D) All cover models are photoshopped; here they removed some cellulite and bulges. Skinny models get their protruding bones and lifeless skin fixed. Which means that the umbrage taken by some posters that they've corrected this image is a little misguided.

The dominant narrative in the US is that thin is good, cultured, well-bred, intelligent and beautiful whereas fat is something to be ashamed of. It's bizarro world that some thin people want fat people to feel like absolute shit and never see themselves represented. Fat shaming does not work. Fact shaming seems actually to cause weight gain.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end of an institution. Sad that SI has caved to this sort of pandering.

I'm a straight woman and find this revolting. I have an obese son, who struggles with thyroid issues as well as my family's endocrine issues. I know the pain and health issues he's suffered over the years due to his obesity. It should not be celebrated.

+1 she does not look healthy of beautiful. Not at that weight.
I'm all for real women's bodies but hers is born of eating to excess at the expense of her current and future health.
Why would anyone want to celebrate that ?
A size 8-10 model sure. Obese? No.

I was told by a male friend that this is to please 'feminists'.
But it's still a most naked woman crawling around for the camera on the cover of a sports magazine.
Whether more body shapes of not are now on their cover its still mostly named women objectified on the cover of a magazine.
It's nothing to aspire to really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end of an institution. Sad that SI has caved to this sort of pandering.

I'm a straight woman and find this revolting. I have an obese son, who struggles with thyroid issues as well as my family's endocrine issues. I know the pain and health issues he's suffered over the years due to his obesity. It should not be celebrated.

+1 she does not look healthy of beautiful. Not at that weight.
I'm all for real women's bodies but hers is born of eating to excess at the expense of her current and future health.
Why would anyone want to celebrate that ?
A size 8-10 model sure. Obese? No.

I have to agree. She does not look healthy.

I was told by a male friend that this is to please 'feminists'.
But it's still a mostly naked woman crawling around for the camera on the cover of a sports magazine.
Whether more body shapes or not are now on their cover its still mostly naked women objectified on the cover of a magazine.
It's nothing to aspire to really.

[Anonymous]

It's bad enough that I can barely find any clothes to fit me in this country without looking like a teenager - I don't need ignorant idiots like you blathering that size 00 is disgusting, pandering, unrealistic and unhealthy. All wrong on all 4 counts! You're moronic.

I don't need ignorant idiots like you blathering that size 16 is disgusting, pandering, unrealistic and unhealthy. All wrong on all 4 counts! You're moronic.

fixed that for you.

[Anonymous]

You guys are crazy. She looks hot. Curves are in folks.

[Anonymous]

It is SO hypocritical how so many of you are on here blathering about how disgraceful it is that SI photoshopped a (clutching pearls/ GASP!!) size 16 model. Yet, practically every single size 00 model on practically EVERY single cover has been photoshopped for the exact same reason and no one goes into a tizzy about that.

And on top of that you have some on here shouting down from their soap box about how "if she were a size 12 (or 10 or 14 or 8) it wouldn't celebrate obesity" at the same time gasping about how she's photoshopped which doesn't make her a size 16, but a size 12 (or 10? o 14?).

So, just so I get this right, summing up what all of you up there better than the rest of us are saying:

1. Awful that we're celebrating obesity because she's a fat model on the cover but it would be okay if she were (a bit) skinnier.
2. But also awful that she's photoshopped to look skinnier than she actually is.
3. And that how dare ANYONE say that a size 00 is unhealthy JUST by looking at their size.
4. But, JUST by looking at Ashley's size, she is unhealthy because of her size.

Okay. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Really pretty tired of hearing people talk about health costs associated with overweight. Many overweight people are perfectly healthy as long as they are not diabetic. Most people who have anorexic BMIs are unhealthy and sustain very high health costs. I have one of these at home. She does not have anorexia, but a medical condition that causes significant weight loss. And the medical bills have been staggering. Thank you everyone for contributing via the pooling of risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are crazy. She looks hot. Curves are in folks.

Fat rolls are not curves idiot

[Anonymous]

Next year's cover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are crazy. She looks hot. Curves are in folks.

Fat rolls are not curves idiot

+ 1,000,000