you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 22 hours ago (11 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 21 hours ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (9 children)

    She’s not skinny though?

    Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant.

    Do people really think that Taylor Swift is fat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

    "not skinny" includes both "fat" and "normal", though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 20 hours ago (5 children)

    Many people use skinny as the opposite of fat, so to be charitable to the poster maybe that’s what they meant.

    I was responding to this in particular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

    But "not skinny" is not the same as "the opposite of skinny".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment