Well to speak to the hater's point, let's take the case of Kristen Johnson from TV's Third Rock from the Sun. I always thought she was extremely cute when she was on that show. Then she gained a few pounds and went even higher in my estimation. There she is at the left at around the time she guest starred on Sex in the City as Carrie's friend from her partying days. They made her out to be a disgusting mess and ended up having her fall out of the window. Now that was the attitude of the gay dudes who ran that show. Better off dead than chubby.After that show, Kristen Johnson was savaged in the press and on the internet. She lost it and proceeded to go out and lose 60 pounds. That's right, 60 pounds. That is the "new" her on the right. What do you think?
I think that the Kristen Johnson on the left is a normal looking sexy woman who should enjoy her life and be happy. If I wasn't happily married I would be all over that. I think the Kristen Johnson on the left looks like a scary psycho bitch who is afraid of a meatball hero.
This is what I a talking about.
14 comments:
Oh, how sad. That's definitely "what the fuck?".
How about something between the two?
Healthy or what the fuck, you make the call?
This is getting nasty. Call out the big guns.
Warning: this is not a pretty sight: link
(thank you Victoria for posting that back then)
I like her with more weight.
She looks like a little girl being that thin.
The starved look is godawful. On anyone.
One of the problems for actresses is that the camera does but on twenty pounds. Any of them I met in real life look sort of normal on film but in person are alarmingly thin, almost Biarfa thin.
The first photo looks like a normal healthy woman, the second like a child as someone has already said. I don't find children sexy and don't understand the appeal of this to the fashion world at large.
There is a range between those two weights--60 pounds of range! That's a lot on a woman. She could look a lot better than she does in either of those pictures by going for somewhere in between. Add 10 pounds to the super skinny photo, and you guys would be calling her hot.
You guys are ignoring the range of thin that comes between emaciated and a bit chubby.
Well what I am saying is that I much prefer the weight that she is in the left handed photo. I think she was proably at the correct weight then for her height and age and so forth but was bullied into the Olsen twins look. Life is hard enough without everyone throwing the hate on the chubby people. Not everyone can spend hours at the gym or hire a trainer or even eat properly prepared meals because they are the run just trying to survive. To me the key is to be healthy as you can and be happy about yourself. And the photo on the left is far from being obese. To say that she is obese or "fat" shows the problem right there.
Only 10 pounds, Freeman? That is still pretty thin. But yes, there is a range for healthy looking women, for sure!
I'm with Freeman.
One thing to keep in mind is that Kristen Johnson is six feet tall.
If she weighed 180 pounds in the first picture, her BMI would be 24-ish, the high end of normal. Dropping 60 would would make her underweight, with a BMI in the 16s.
Make of that what you will.
Good point, Blake. And I still think that 10 pounds added to the skeletal look would not make her look much healthier. But sure, she could have lost ten or twenty from the healthier looking size and still have looked great.
I'm going to look up what is supposed to be a healthy weight range for a six foot tall woman.
oh cmon these BS tables, use yr eyes. I would boff the one on the left, =the one on the right I would hospitalize for sandwich therapy. She looked fantastic on 3rd rock, an Amazon. Fat? What fat? You wanna tweak 10 lbs, fine if you insist. Whatever she did...baby, dial it down to 10.
Post a Comment