It’s like they’ve never seen women’s bodies in real life before. If Taylor fucking Swift isn’t considered skinny, then I guess the rest of womanhood can go yeet ourselves off of cliffs. She’s practically underweight and it still isn’t skinny enough.
Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant. They could be thinking: Taylor is thin sure, but not too thin, so not skinny. Skinny would be firmly in the underweight category using this definition; a sleight on their weight and not something to aspire to.
In the pursuit of continuing to be charitable, I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused.
“Not skinny” does not mean “fat” necessarily, in the same way “not tall” does not necessarily mean “short”, or “not cold” isn’t the same as “hot”. It’s a continuum with a middle ground that’s the assumed “default” so there are terms describing deviation from that middle. In common language, “not” preceding the term that describes that deviation tends to mean it falls within the default range, as if they meant it fell outside the range in the other direction they’d just use the term for that part of the range instead.
In this case, the assumed middle is the range of weights deemed “normal” so fat and skinny describe those body types that fall outside that range. Saying someone isn’t skinny does not equate to saying they’re fat since thay can be neither (and that’s typically what’s meant).
I think these people calling Taylor Swift not skinny are just imagining Victoria Secret models.
It’s a range, just like all bodies are on a range, and they don’t seem to get that
It’s like they’ve never seen women’s bodies in real life before. If Taylor fucking Swift isn’t considered skinny, then I guess the rest of womanhood can go yeet ourselves off of cliffs. She’s practically underweight and it still isn’t skinny enough.
Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant. They could be thinking: Taylor is thin sure, but not too thin, so not skinny. Skinny would be firmly in the underweight category using this definition; a sleight on their weight and not something to aspire to.
Do people really think that Taylor Swift is fat?
“not skinny” includes both “fat” and “normal”, though
I was responding to this in particular.
But “not skinny” is not the same as “the opposite of skinny”.
At 5’10" and between 115-130lbs, Taylor Swift is skinny. She is thin. She is not overweight. She is bordering on underweight.
The pictures in the post are also taken from slightly below which will make her thighs look slightly bigger due to the lens distortion.
She’s also not unhealthily underweight, and therefore not skinny.
Agree on the lens distortion here. Not a lot people is looking good from that angle.
In this picture, I’d call her “normal”. The physique that’s basically the norm for “sexy” celebrity women is squarely in the underweight range.
In the pursuit of continuing to be charitable, I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused.
“Not skinny” does not mean “fat” necessarily, in the same way “not tall” does not necessarily mean “short”, or “not cold” isn’t the same as “hot”. It’s a continuum with a middle ground that’s the assumed “default” so there are terms describing deviation from that middle. In common language, “not” preceding the term that describes that deviation tends to mean it falls within the default range, as if they meant it fell outside the range in the other direction they’d just use the term for that part of the range instead.
In this case, the assumed middle is the range of weights deemed “normal” so fat and skinny describe those body types that fall outside that range. Saying someone isn’t skinny does not equate to saying they’re fat since thay can be neither (and that’s typically what’s meant).
Again, I was specifically replying to this line:
Plenty of VS models have oomph tho.