499
What is skinny (lemmy.nz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Well, the number of people claiming Taylor Swift, a person who had an eating disorder, isn't skinny is certainly proving the OP's point. That being said, I think part of this is that the person is using a simplified, slightly cartoon-ish art style, which communicates reality through minimal lines. Our brains interpret reality through exaggerations in drawings like this; if they were to communicate youth in this style, they would probably make the figure's eyes 30-40% bigger than they would be in reality. I think that, the more detail they added, and the closer to photo-realism they got, the less, "plus-sized," she would appear.

Another aspect is the angle of the photo; it's a somewhat candid photo taken while she's walking. She looks significantly thinner in the photo below, where she's posing at a more flattering angle for the camera.

None of this is to invalidate the OP's point, but to offer an explanation for this mentality. If your exposure to women is mostly anime characters drawn with exaggerated proportions and Instagram models posing at optimal angles, you can convince yourself that Taylor Swift isn't skinny by seeing a simplified sketch of her.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Are we even positive that the post's picture and yours show her at the same weight? Not saying she's fat in either, but the post might show her at a normal weight.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 94 points 4 days ago

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".

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 77 points 4 days ago

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

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

[-] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 4 days ago

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days 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

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

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

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago

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

[-] blackshirt@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] atomicorange@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

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

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Same kind of thing here.

If you compare the drawn body to a real body's actual size and proportions, 'full figure' is basically 'somewhere between normal and a healthy skinny'.

'Tall and thin' is in actuality 'starvation/anorexia/muscular dystrophy/something like that'.

The proportions are fundamentally unrealistic, which, on the one hand, duh, but on the other hand, does literally create an unrealistic body size/shape/proportion standard.

[-] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 3 days ago

Please tell me that page is a joke. Those 4 figures are practically identical.

(Yes, I see the minute differences between them)

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

for manga that's a WILD amount of variety. not because that's OK, just because the industry is stuffed full of same samey sameness

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Undearius@lemmy.ca 58 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think a contributing factor is the art style.

A simple trace has no shading or depth, which then the widest section of each part is brought to the front, on the same plane of the slimmer parts of that section.

For example, a cyclindar has a gradual taper to the full width. This art style would just flatten it to a rectangle.

[-] mirshafie@europe.pub 36 points 4 days ago

Art is about capturing the feeling of a thing, not recording and replaying the actual thing.

A good drawing discards almost all of the unnecessary information from the real scene. Then you exaggerate to bring out the essence - which lines get thicker, which shades get darker, which features are literally enlarged or shrunken.

That's the labor of the artist, to decide what's relevant and what's not.

[-] EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 4 days ago

Sure, but that's not the point of this post. It's a reminder that draws (haha) attention to the fact that art isn't necessarily a literal 1:1 copy of real life and that we shouldn't compare ourselves or others to idealised or stylised artistic depictions, nor judge ourselves on them.

That is really illustrative.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago

I've done painting of live models who are objectively attractive to have people (men I'm sure) say nasty things about the model.

Like attractive in real life an attractive in TV/Internet are different and a 10 on person is a 4 on the Internet or whatever.

This is a great illustration of that problem.

[-] searabbit@piefed.social 12 points 4 days ago

I think anyone who's seen a decent amount of celebrities in person can attest to this. People who look attractive in 2D do look attractive irl, but in an uncanny way? Less of a sexy - I want to date this person - attraction and more of a confused - how is it possible to look like this - admiration.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

That's also not a uniformly right fitting outfit. It's tight on the shoulders and hips, but looser at the middle Drawn clothes don't have to have any thickness or areas to stretch.

[-] peanuts4life@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I won't deny that this is true, but it's also the case that cartoons tend to have larger heads. The skinny version of swift here is also shorter and has more narrow shoulders / hips. She's not just drawn thinner, but literally smaller to accommodate the proportionally larger head. I think this is kind of exaggerating the effect. If the artist had instead drawn a larger head, it wouldn't be as dramatic.

[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

Isn't that dress covered in fringe? I mean, she's in great shape either way, but fringe all over a dress is bulking.

[-] Krudler@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago

I always love this type of thread-squabbling.

Obesity has become such a pervasive problem that people do not even understand what it means to be skinny.

I grew up in the '70s when we ate the appropriate amount of food. 50 years later let me tell you my friends, what you think is skinny is NOT skinny.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Same age. These people would be appalled at the class of '89.

Talking about a mutual friend in his early 20s, "He's not fat, just a little pudgy."

"In 1989 he would have been the fattest kid in my class of 400, by a long shot."

Dude was speechless for a moment. The young man in question is shaped like Cartman.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Horsey@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

You can also look back at photos of people in the 70s from various cultures. We’ve become fatter overall because of processed food and reduced exercise.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

We've also gotten significantly taller and older in only about a century.

Year Median age
1820 - 16.7
1860 - 19.4
1900 - 22.9
1940 - 29.0
1970 - 28.1
1980 - 30.0
1990 - 32.9
2000 - 35.3
2020 - 38.8

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 days ago

Oh I love this!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
499 points (96.1% liked)

Curated Tumblr

7494 readers
5 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS