Anonymous
02/14/2016 16:32
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I agree.
Size 16 is not a healthy weight.
With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.
But we've been normalizing and celebrating size 00 for years. Why is it only disgusting and pandering only on one side of the BMI scale?
A lot of suffering comes from trying to fit an unrealistic (and equally unhealthy) body "ideal".
Then use a size six to size ten model.
This lady is at an unhealthy size. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, not a too thin epidemic.
Eating disorders are in fact a problem in this country.
yes, too much eating
Not sure why you are such a bitch but you must be aware that there are sadly many many girls starving themselves to death or binging and purging.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 16:21
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:I guarantee you most men would prefer this look over the average runway model.
yep!
Anonymous
02/14/2016 16:21
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:
Here's the problem. They do 00 or "overcompensate" with 16.
Give me a nice 6 or 8 like Liz Taylor, Marilyn, Jayne Mansfield...
Marilyn was larger than reported!
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/
Same with Jayne Mansfield:
http://celebriot.com/jayne-mansfield-weight-height-measurements-bra-size-ethnicity
We all know what happened to Liz!
Anonymous
02/14/2016 16:05
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:I guarantee you most men would prefer this look over the average runway model.
+1
Anonymous
02/14/2016 16:04
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The thing is that she is size 16 but her fat is in all the right places. She has a flat tummy, no stretch marks, no bulges, no cellulite, no double chin.
Yes, she is surely not waif thin like previous models, but she is not the representative size 16. Nice try SI, but you are not going to out Mama June on the cover now, are you?
There is no way she is that big with no celluite, bulges or stretch marks. That is photoshop magic.
She is a young woman, not a 40 year old who birthed a couple of kids. That size is not healthy for a young woman.
She's 29, 5'9" and per the internet 185 lbs. I imagine they're using a couture size method when calling her a 16, and that she's closer to a mall size 12.
I am the same height, carry it in my hips and butt as well, and was between a curvy cut 10 - 12 pant at that weight (though my chest isn't as big).
Anonymous
02/14/2016 15:51
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
I guarantee you most men would prefer this look over the average runway model.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 15:50
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:The thing is that she is size 16 but her fat is in all the right places. She has a flat tummy, no stretch marks, no bulges, no cellulite, no double chin.
Yes, she is surely not waif thin like previous models, but she is not the representative size 16. Nice try SI, but you are not going to out Mama June on the cover now, are you?
There is no way she is that big with no celluite, bulges or stretch marks. That is photoshop magic.
She is a young woman, not a 40 year old who birthed a couple of kids. That size is not healthy for a young woman.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 15:47
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
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.
I agree.
Size 16 is not a healthy weight.
With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.
You should educate yourself a bit more. She looks like she gains weight in her hips and thighs which actually makes her healthier than someone who is a size 8 or 10 and carries their weight in the midsection. Do you know her cholesterol numbers? Blood sugar? Blood pressure? No. While there is a pretty damn good chance no one will believe me, I was almost 300 pounds and still considered medically healthy. All my numbers were normal. I have lost over 100 pounds and of course they have lowered significantly and I feel better. My sister was almost 300 pounds and had tons of medical issues. The difference? She carried all her weight in her mid section.
There have been studies recently that have suggested being a bit overweight is actually much healthier for you. Obesity is a serious issue, but I would not look at someone who is a size 16 and say they are disgusting and obese. Now when you start to get to size 20 and above (depending on someones height of course) you are starting to get into a very bad place. Not all people are built the same. If someone at size 16 is comfortable in their own skin and they are taking care of themselves, we should learn to celebrate them instead of tear them down because of what WE think they should look like.
Exactly this. There was just an article in the NYT about this very thing. And I say this as a slim person. But I am so sick of people acting as though thinness automatically = healthy and overweightness = unhealthiness when it is so far from the case.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 15:42
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
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.
I agree.
Size 16 is not a healthy weight.
With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.
But we've been normalizing and celebrating size 00 for years. Why is it only disgusting and pandering only on one side of the BMI scale?
A lot of suffering comes from trying to fit an unrealistic (and equally unhealthy) body "ideal".
+1
Anonymous
02/14/2016 14:33
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
She's very pretty and beautiful. The cover pic is not flattering at all. I wish I looked that good. I'm a sz 8 but no where near as sexy!
Anonymous
02/14/2016 14:30
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
As per an earlier comment, the 'thing' here is that she has a lovely face -- not chubby or anything that might match the larger size of her body. So, that is very pleasing to look at. Would SI put a model on there who had say a rounder face, less contoured? Not so sure.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 14:29
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I agree.
Size 16 is not a healthy weight.
With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.
But we've been normalizing and celebrating size 00 for years. Why is it only disgusting and pandering only on one side of the BMI scale?
A lot of suffering comes from trying to fit an unrealistic (and equally unhealthy) body "ideal".
Then use a size six to size ten model.
This lady is at an unhealthy size. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, not a too thin epidemic.
Eating disorders are in fact a problem in this country.
yes, too much eating
Anonymous
02/14/2016 11:50
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
One photo shoot in one magazine isn't going to change anything.
I'm not going to judge whether she's healthy or not. I have no clue what her doctor thinks. IMO she looks a hell of a lot better than some of the skeletal women normally seen on the cover.
Could she tone up and lose a few pounds? Probably. So could a lot of people. Alternatively, a lot of people could be skinny/scrawny and lead an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle.
I'm not going to judge whether she's healthy or not. I have no clue what her doctor thinks. IMO she looks a hell of a lot better than some of the skeletal women normally seen on the cover.
Could she tone up and lose a few pounds? Probably. So could a lot of people. Alternatively, a lot of people could be skinny/scrawny and lead an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 11:38
Subject: First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
Anonymous wrote: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.
I agree.
Size 16 is not a healthy weight.
With the obesity epidemic in this country, we should not be normalizing a size 16 as a desireable body.
But we've been normalizing and celebrating size 00 for years. Why is it only disgusting and pandering only on one side of the BMI scale?
A lot of suffering comes from trying to fit an unrealistic (and equally unhealthy) body "ideal".
Then use a size six to size ten model.
This lady is at an unhealthy size. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, not a too thin epidemic.
Eating disorders are in fact a problem in this country.
Anonymous
02/14/2016 11:36
Subject: Re:First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!
I googled other pictures of her. She has a pretty face. That is all.... The body is horrible!