xlynx
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • xlynx

      These women are plus sized. Gorgeous? Yes. Fat? No. Plus sized? Yes. The different size just means their clothes are different sizes to fit their body. The real problem is the stigma associated with having a wide body (wide chest, wide hips) is somehow unattractive or fat. I think they look great.  But they are plus sized. Many of these people couldn’t fit into the smaller sizes. It doesn’t mean they’re unattractive, it just means they’re bigger. I’m a male with a very wide chest. I can wear a large to an extra small depending upon the brand, entirely based on my chest size. Wearing a large H&M shirt doesn’t make me larger than when I wear a small Stafford shirt — and the large is actually much tighter across my chest than the latter.  The labels are based on the brand. You could be “plus sized” for several different brands and not for others. I understand the article is supposed to highlight how America is obsessed with weight, etc, but truthfully it’s just an empty title that says more about the target demographic than it does about the actual consumer. Don’t be ashamed to buy something “plus size” if it fits and looks good, it doesn’t mean anything. If you look at the sizes for China, it’s actually way crazier: I basically can’t wear any clothes designed for Chinese consumers, just like many of these women couldn’t fit into a Chinese XL for women (or maybe even XXL). It doesn’t mean these women are dying from obesity, it just means they have much wider dimensions than the typical demographic. And there’s nothing wrong with that — many guys find that more attractive even. If you really want to mock a country for rigid standards on sizes, you’ll find China is much less forgiving than our fast food nation.

    • xlynx

      I’m disappointed plenty by Obama, but this entire argument is stupid. “More americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush” It’s entirely accurate - and entirely idiotic. Bush lost 4500 soldiers in Iraq in the first year, Afghanistan wasn’t even our priority and he lost 500 there — half the damn country didn’t know we even had troops in Afghanistan. The majority of these are about drone strikes… which is stupid. Bush used drone strikes and I didn’t freak out then — I freaked out when he purposefully lied about weapons of mass destruction to initiate a war. I freaked out when he couldn’t pronounce basic words in his native tongue despite a very impressive history when he was Governor. I freaked out that he started No Child Left Behind, which coincidentally left a shit ton of children behind by cutting the school budgets and rewarding schools for how they report their data and not how their students succeed ( like the school who said 50% of their students “dropped out” to have better test scores and to make more money, despite only 1.5% dropping out).  I do not hate Bush, and I do not love Obama, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. You’re trying to push that Obama had more people die under his reign in the military when the death count *over four years* is less than *a third* of *one* year under Bush. Seriously think about that. You’re trying to demonize Obama for how heavy the death count is… despite it being ~30% of the deaths *just in Iraq, just in the first year*. You wrote a piece to deliberately misinform. I have no problems with Republicans — I used to vote Republican — but this campaign trail of lying to the audience to get your point across makes me sick of the party. I’m all for criticizing Obama. But this shit is just stupid. It’s not about criticizing Obama — it’s about trying to misinform the public.