Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not understand how this different from putting an anorexic model on the cover

601 replies

Spinderelle · 30/08/2018 12:59

Cosmopolitan have a morbidly obese model on their cover this month. I am absolutely behind the idea of body positivity - after children my body is far from perfect and it’s nice to see companies like ASOS use larger women and not airbrush stretch marks etc.

But this model is dangerously obese and risking her health. How is that any different from having a dangerously thin model on the cover?

OP posts:
OP posts:
HavelockVetinari · 30/08/2018 13:01

It's not any different, it's a disgrace.

MissionItsPossible · 30/08/2018 13:03

I knew it was going to be that, I saw it on the news this morning. I thought exactly the same thing

Witchend · 30/08/2018 13:04

It gets more publicity, that's how it differs.

Mushroomsarehorrible · 30/08/2018 13:05

Agree, the same. WTH are they trying to prove.

Cosmo has always been a shit mag, desperately trying to be controversial but failing miserably

PositivelyPERF · 30/08/2018 13:05

I agree, OP. There’s a huge difference between not body shaming women and encouraging unhealthy eating, of either end of the spectrum. I’m speaking as a previously slender woman who is now carrying too much weight and struggling with my eating.

OutPinked · 30/08/2018 13:08

Amazed the magazine is still going if I’m being totally honest, it’s always been shit.

I don’t see much difference either, both eating disorders. Tired of hearing about ‘body positivity’ and ‘fat shaming’ tbh. It isn’t fat shaming to be told you are morbidly obese and could die as a result.

RiddleyW · 30/08/2018 13:09

It differs in that people are less likely to attempt to achieve Tess' body than they are a very thin model.

Also anorexia is a very serious mental illness with a high mortality rate - I don't think Tess has an illness.

Anyway that said, I don't like the cover much.

Verbena87 · 30/08/2018 13:09

It’s different because dangerously underweight women are treated with respect and envy (I’ve had a BMI in the ‘dangerously underweight’ category when I was suffering from intense anxiety and struggling to eat. Colleagues at work made comments like “you’re so lovely and slim” “I wish I had your tiny waist”), and dangerously overweight women are disrespected, laughed at, or subject to disgust.

Both are unhealthy and neither are to be encouraged, but one comes with additional status and the other with far less. What we actually need to do is work towards a society where that imbalance gets addressed (and maybe people are judged by what they do rather than the shape of their bag of meat and bone).

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:09

Until there's the same pressure on women to be dangerously fat as there is to be dangerously thin, I can't get worked up about it.

Nobody is going to go out and start stuffing on the basis of this magazine cover.

Tess Holliday is literally the exception that proves the rule. I knew it would be her because it always is. There's nobody else.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:09

Until there's the same pressure on women to be dangerously fat as there is to be dangerously thin, I can't get worked up about it.

Nobody is going to go out and start stuffing on the basis of this magazine cover.

Tess Holliday is literally the exception that proves the rule. I knew it would be her because it always is. There's nobody else.

Nuffaluff · 30/08/2018 13:10

It’s different in that the vast majority of people do not aspire to be morbidly obese. However, being thin is held up as the ideal.
I’m amazed they did this cover. I wonder how it will affect sales?

Racecardriver · 30/08/2018 13:12

YANBU. It's exactly the same. Ta glorifying and applauding extremely unhealthy bodies and lifestyles. They should stop ferishising forms that make women sick and instead feature healthy women on their covers. Unhealthy should not be equated to beautiful.

CardsforKittens · 30/08/2018 13:12

If you don't understand the difference, is that because you lack the background? Or the capacity?

fanfan18 · 30/08/2018 13:14

*It’s different because dangerously underweight women are treated with respect and envy (I’ve had a BMI in the ‘dangerously underweight’ category when I was suffering from intense anxiety and struggling to eat. Colleagues at work made comments like “you’re so lovely and slim” “I wish I had your tiny waist”), and dangerously overweight women are disrespected, laughed at, or subject to disgust.

Both are unhealthy and neither are to be encouraged, but one comes with additional status and the other with far less. What we actually need to do is work towards a society where that imbalance gets addressed (and maybe people are judged by what they do rather than the shape of their bag of meat and bone).*

This^^^

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 13:20

I'm stunned people can't see the difference. It's not - and never will be - aspirational to be fat. Whereas it is to be ultra thin. Someone was complaining about being size 10 the other day.

Women come in all shapes and sizes and the sooner we teach our daughters that none is inherently better than all the others, the healthier our society will be.

MarthaArthur · 30/08/2018 13:20

I saw it in the shop today and was shocked. I disagree that underweight/anorexic women are praised. When i was severely underweight i was called skeletal. Anorexic. Disgusting. Snappable. I was never told i was enviable. Even now i am ever so slightly underweight by about half a stone and im never praised for my shape. I am still called anorexic. Tiny. Need feeding. Having the body of a small boy. This was the same for my underweight friend.

Either way its not healthy to promote and display obesity. Its every bit as damaging as anorexia. We have a rapidly increasing obesity crisis causing all kinds of health complaints and people cant see it as its being normalised. You see it on here a lot. Normal weight models are classes as being skinny. Size 14 is hailed as average size. People confused by portion sizes.

Shednik · 30/08/2018 13:21

Yes. ^this.

eyycarumba · 30/08/2018 13:21

The whole 'body positively' thing is warped. Tess Holliday is an awful 'role model' but people jump to her defense saying how do we not know shes not healthy blah blah....she is morbidly obese, not just big boned, that size is not natural unless she has other health issues. She is also a horrible bully and a con artist. These defenders tend to be the same people who tell slimmer people to 'eat a sandwich'.

I've seen some comments on threads about how the public/industry don't treat thin people the same way - but it does, for years and years the public has fought against images of overly thin models and in recent years the modelling industry to an extent has created rules about girls not being below a certain BMI.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:21

I'm stunned people can't see the difference.

I think they can but have reasons to pretend not to. Most likely, that they work hard to be thin, place a huge amount of importance on it, and are very unsettled at any message, however lone and weak and overshadowed, that it might not be quite that worthy.

Saggital · 30/08/2018 13:21

Cause and effect, surely?

Original poster
Spinderelle · 30/08/2018 13:22

It sends a message that it’s ok to be dangerously fat. At s point when our NHS is on its knees and we are in the grip of an obesity crisis.

Of course no one is going to go and gorge themselves till they’re this size after seeing the cover but, health wise, it’s not ok to be this fat.

OP posts:
Lumpylump · 30/08/2018 13:24

Always seems to be one extreme or the other - too thin or too fat
I’ll never understand what’s wrong with ‘average’ sized models which could be a range of healthy sizes between 8-18 for example to represent most of the female population
Controversy sells I guess

BluthsFrozenBananas · 30/08/2018 13:25

I don’t think it’s excatly the same, but Cosmo have misunderstood what they should be showing, and that’s a range of normal body types not swinging from very tall, thin models to extremely overweight ones.

I, like many British women, am short and pear shaped with a small bust and chunky legs. My body type is very common but hardly ever shown or represented in fashion magazines, generally when magazines claim they’re showing “real” women what they’re actually showing is tall, curvy hourglass figured women. What’s wrong with using a range of differently shaped, healthy weight women?

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:27

It sends a message that it’s ok to be dangerously fat.

It doesn't, but even if it does, that message is more than adequately drowned out by the tidal wave of opposing messages telling women that they will always be too fat. And not only that, but that being fat also means they are ugly, unlovable, stupid and worthless.

If it had been a skinny woman on the cover you wouldn't have posted anything or been able to name her, because billions of skinny women grace the covers of, well, everything. I knew before I clicked on this that it would be Tess Holliday because she's the only plus sized one.

That's what 'exception that proves the rule' means. It means that if you couldn't name anyone in the avalanche of skinny models because their number is countless, but the plus size representative is ALWAYS Tess Holliday, that's basically proof that she's so much of an outlier, you can safely ignore her influence on your agenda.