# Eat a sandwich! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758 "2006-02-03T00:01:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/101 "2006-02-03T20:00:56Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I said that because of her big fake boobs on her skinny body. They look really wrong to me because they are NOT natural. I wasn’t taking about her fitness at that point but her surgical alteration into a cartoon character. > > I reserve the right to not like how women who alter themselves look. I wish no one felt like she needed to get breast augmentation to feel beautiful or to conform to a certain body type. I don’t think that’s out of line for me to say. Are we talking about the weird photo with the ribs? Because her boobs were not particularly big in that picture, and between the angle she was standing at, the thing she was holding in front of her stomach, and the shadow on her back, I think it’s hard to tell what she looks like at all. She’s definitely thin, but being able to see some ribs when someone’s back is arched is not a sign that they’re starving to death. And it’s hard to tell anything else about her overall body shape because of all the different things in the photo that camouflaged her girth. Her breasts are the only thing you _could_ evaluate, and they don’t look particularly large, nor do they have that odd “half-a-grapefruit” shape. Look again at the photo. At a glance, it makes her look weirdly thin. But try to find the actual contours of her body and you’ll see that you can’t even tell very well what angle her torso is at, so it’s hard to tell how big it is at all, aside from the shadow. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/102 "2006-02-03T20:04:42Z")
> [@liberty3701](#): > > [quote=“Athena” > Thin does not equal healthy, just as chubby or fat doesn’t always equal unhealthy. The majority of Americans probably can’t run 3 miles. Those that can are not always recognizable by their body type.[/quote] > Right there, on the nose, exactly. Ditto. **Athena** said it much better than I did. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/103 "2006-02-03T20:06:33Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Yes, I believe that \*a majority \* of size 12’s are out of shape. I’m sure that there is any number of exceptions that you can point to like taller than average or large boned/muscled individuals. For every one of your exceptions I’ll show you ten 5’4" size 12’s that can’t run around the block without getting winded. Take that as an insult if you must. > > Look, I don’t care if someone is comfortable with themselves as a size 12 or 22. Honestly, I’m absolutely fine with that. I just don’t want to hear them critisize a size 2 as anorexic, particularly if that size 2 puts in considerable daily effort to stay that size and feels healthy/happy doing it. OR if they are simply made that way and don’t put any effort into it. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/104 "2006-02-03T20:06:39Z")
And coded it much better too . . . :smack: ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/105 "2006-02-03T20:37:01Z")
I think I can dig what **Rubystreak** is getting at if I replace “normal” with average. (Please correct me if I’m getting this wrong, **Rubystreak** )but I think her disdain is for the media’s exclusive use of women with bodies that are in no way “average”. I don’t think she’s so much calling JS abnormal in the freakazoid unnatural sense, as she’s saying very few women were born with /have the capacity to achieve that look. Ya know, it’s not “the norm” Semantics, I know, but it does change the tone a little. Am I reading you right, **Ruby**? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/106 "2006-02-03T20:45:50Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > I don’t think she’s so much calling JS abnormal in the freakazoid unnatural sense, as she’s saying very few women were born with /have the capacity to achieve that look. Ya know, it’s not “the norm” Semantics, I know, but it does change the tone a little. Am I reading you right, **Ruby**? I think that’s what she’s saying now. However, [reread post 99](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7065682&postcount=99). She was pretty unambiguously insulting Simpson in the linked thread. I’m happy if she’s changed her mind about the insults, but it’s unfair for her to suggest that other people are projecting and that she never said anything denigrating about Simpson’s body type. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/107 "2006-02-03T21:10:06Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > Am I the only one here that thinks the concept of a size 0 is pure madness? For the longest time, I thought it was just a joke. Wtf? Why would it be a joke any more than a size 16? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/108 "2006-02-03T21:15:10Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Wtf? Why would it be a joke any more than a size 16? I think he’s commenting on the fact that a size nothing is meaningless. It relates to nothing because it represents nothing. If that makes sense. — signed, a former size nothing 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/109 "2006-02-03T21:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Wtf? Why would it be a joke any more than a size 16? To me it’s strange because zero indicates the absence of anything. Also,we don’t start the count of anything else at 0. 16 makes perfect sense as it represents the 16th level (in reality the eighth, as women’s sizes don’t use the odd numbers)in the size continuum (that’s an industry term, yo 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/110 "2006-02-03T21:27:55Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I think he’s commenting on the fact that a size nothing is meaningless. It relates to nothing because it represents nothing. If that makes sense. > > — signed, a former size nothing 🙂 Thank you for clarifying on my behalf. Bear in mind, as a guy, I go to the store and buy according to - get this!- my measurements. If guys were to have some arcane, non-standard numbering system, we’d at least have the decency to start at **1**. Anything smaller is a kid size. What next? a random progression? Reverse numbering? Oh, I know! Let’s use a classic bell curve, with zero as an average size (let’s say 8-10) and have negative sizes!\* \*If this is actually being done, please don’t tell me! ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/111 "2006-02-03T21:32:10Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > Thank you for clarifying on my behalf. Bear in mind, as a guy, I go to the store and buy according to - get this!- my measurements. If guys were to have some arcane, non-standard numbering system, we’d at least have the decency to start at **1**. Anything smaller is a kid size. > > What next? a random progression? Reverse numbering? Oh, I know! Let’s use a classic bell curve, with zero as an average size (let’s say 8-10) and have negative sizes!\* > > \*If this is actually being done, please don’t tell me! _feels the whoosh_ Heh. I get it now. -NinjaChick, who finds most size 0 clothing a little bit large on her. And also, _hates_ being small. ---
**Author:** ![Athena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@Athena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Athena)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/112 "2006-02-03T21:32:18Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > To me it’s strange because zero indicates the absence of anything. Also,we don’t start the count of anything else at 0. 16 makes perfect sense as it represents the 16th level (in reality the eighth, as women’s sizes don’t use the odd numbers)in the size continuum (that’s an industry term, yo 😉 ) Either that, or the programmers got ahold of the sizing scheme. 0 based arrays are the norm in the coding world 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/113 "2006-02-03T21:34:52Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > Thank you for clarifying on my behalf. Bear in mind, as a guy, I go to the store and buy according to - get this!- my measurements. If guys were to have some arcane, non-standard numbering system, we’d at least have the decency to start at **1**. Anything smaller is a kid size. > > What next? a random progression? Reverse numbering? Oh, I know! Let’s use a classic bell curve, with zero as an average size (let’s say 8-10) and have negative sizes!\* > > \*If this is actually being done, please don’t tell me! Here’s the real head fuck: my niece is 12 years old and is a size 12, where I’m a middle-aged broad and I’m a 2. Go figure. It’s a plot (no doubt hatched by men) to drive us insane. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/114 "2006-02-03T21:36:00Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > _feels the whoosh_ > Heh. I get it now. > > -NinjaChick, who finds most size 0 clothing a little bit large on her. And also, _hates_ being small. I used to be that chick. Wait til menopause kicks in. All bets are off, baby. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/115 "2006-02-03T22:24:15Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I said that because of her big fake boobs on her skinny body. They look really wrong to me because they are NOT natural. I wasn’t taking about her fitness at that point but her surgical alteration into a cartoon character. I don’t think she’s had surgery. When she was a teenager and was trying to make it as a Christian singer, she “blossomed” so much that she was considered too sexual/sexy to sing Christian music. So it wasn’t an asset she was looking to get. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/116 "2006-02-03T22:33:07Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > What’s moronic is thinking that your body is what everyone should look like. You probably look great and you’re very lucky. Most women I know with big boobs who is over 30 has a tummy. Being a rarity doesn’t make you a freak, and it’d be nice if people stopped putting words in my mouth. > . Wow - my irony meter just pinged. I said that I have big boobs and a flat stomach, and somehow in that you got that I think everyone should look like me. And I’m putting words in YOUR mouth. Wowsers. Well, you caught me, your right. Except I don’t think EVERYONE should look like me - just you. And until you grow 6 inches, develop a flat stomach and bigger boobs, you’re less of a woman than I am. There - I bet you feel even MORE morally superior. Happy to oblige. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/117 "2006-02-03T22:37:32Z")
> [@Athena](#): > > Er, isn’t that true of any size? The majority of all sizes are out of shape. As a nation, we don’t exercise enough. > > I can personally think of several very very skinny women who can’t run a mile (much less 3). Some are just naturally thin, but at least a couple others that I know are thin because they don’t eat right, are stress-junkies, smoke like a chimney, or are drug/alcohol addicts. I couldn’t run a mile to save my life. Hell, I get tired if I _walk_ a mile. The only excercise I get is walking in my workplace (which, admittedly, is a pretty big place.) There are a couple reasons for this, the primary one being natural laziness. I’m an “indoor girl” who prefers to read and hates to sweat. Secondly, I have a heart problem and a back injury that precludes a lot of strenous things. But I have to admit that even if I were perfectly healthy, I still wouldn’t be out jogging. I just don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/118 "2006-02-03T23:34:16Z")
I stand by most of what I said and I do think you are taking a lot of it out of context. To me, she looks like a very thin girl, except for her chest. Some folks ahve indicated that a lot of how thin she looks in that first picture of her was lighting, and I’ll take their word for it. She looks emaciated in that picture but I’m, willing to believe that particular photo was lit weird and/or doctored, which is another problem with advertising and its representation of women. However,her arms do look like toothpicks, which is normal for some people, but usually they’re thin all over. Maybe that’s how she naturally is, but that does not fit with her breast size. You do realize that breasts are mostly made of fat, right? Why would someone have two perfectly round globes of fat on her chest and not one iota of fat anywhere else? That’s not normal fat distribution and it’s not how most women are built, even thin ones. Consequently, she does look like a stick with two halves of a canteloupe stuck to them. Her breasts defy both gravity and geometry, as do her lips. She has been surgically enhanced, which is why she should not be held up as some sort of norm or idol. Please don’t tell me you think Jessica Simpson is anything other than an ironic and absurd spokesperson for Pizza Hut. She doesn’t get and stay that thin by eating the product she’s advertising; there is no way she eats that stuff. She’s on a very specialized diet, from what someone else posted. Thus, it’s a deceptive advertising campaign, using a girl who is on a no-cheese, no carb diet (which, again, is a separate issue, the whole “no carbs” thing… I think JS might benefit from a few carbs, but that’s JMO). If one of those Cheesy Nodules popped right into JS, she’s scream and freak out, undoubtedly. But hey, so would I. Ewww. > [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > Wow - my irony meter just pinged. I said that I have big boobs and a flat stomach, and somehow in that you got that I think everyone should look like me. And I’m putting words in YOUR mouth. Wowsers. I didn’t say YOU were a moron. I said IF YOU THOUGHT everyone SHOULD look like you, THEN you’d be a moron. Since you do not think this, clearly you are not a moron. Please try to ease up on being so defensive. I’m not attacking you and I don’t feel morally superior to you. I’m sure you look great and are very lucky to have the body you have. Not everyone is so lucky and those other body types should be just as honored and OK as yours. If you and I agree on this, then we have no disagreement between us. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/119 "2006-02-03T23:40:16Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > I don’t think she’s had surgery. When she was a teenager and was trying to make it as a Christian singer, she “blossomed” so much that she was considered too sexual/sexy to sing Christian music. So it wasn’t an asset she was looking to get. [Oh really?](http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/2004_09.html) Scroll down to the bottom of that page and tell me those are real. Apparently she lost a lot of weight, which left her a bit saggy, as it will, so she got bolstered. That’s absolutely her prerogative, but I do have to say she looks really fake to me, and that’s not sexy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758/120 "2006-02-03T23:40:41Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I stand by most of what I said and I do think you are taking a lot of it out of context. At this point, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that you **are** in denial. That’s a shame: you’ve got some attitudes toward other folks’ bodies that make it hard to take you seriously when you decry other folks’ attitudes toward the bodies of women. I hope you’ll spend some time examining your own attitudes, and whether they really reflect the ideals you espouse. But it’s clear that I’m not going to be able to help you with that. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eat-a-sandwich/342758.md?page=7)