First of all, I am 5'11 with 24 inch waist and I do not look "shockingly skinny", as anyone who's met me in real life will attest. Thin, yes, I get that a lot, but only idiots suggest I have a problem. Also, I rather have doubts about the fact that she turned up to a casting and looked a glowing picture of health and then one week later was a bag of bones, unless she'd contracted a particularly fast-acting flesh-eating virus.
Second of all, the Fail claims in the sidebar (although not in the main article text) that the magazine airbrushed her to look three stone heavier. Now excuse me, but as previously stated, I am virtually the same size as the model in question and I've been told by various quacks that I'm between one and two stone underweight, and that's underweight in terms of what's "average" not the bare minimum that would be considered healthy. So three stone to make her look healthy? I don't think so. Yet another example of the Fail's constant manipulation of measures and statistics to scaremonger the population into being in a terminal state of panic, so that they might look to newspapers (one in specific, obviously) for guidance in this time of turmoil. Hey, that's how the right wing tabloid press works.
The size zero models are coming for you - RUN!
They say real women have curves.
ReplyDeleteYes, but "they" are unassailable morons.
ReplyDelete