Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And since when has Sports Illustrated promoted healthy lifestyles? LMAO ...
And if we are being really nit-picky Sports Illustrated has probably covered a lot of athletes taking illegal substances over the years. Some have been exposed, most have not.
I agree with Cheryl Tiegs completely. This whole "fat shaming" talk is a bunch of political correctness nonsense.
Ashley Graham may have a beautiful face, and she may be a beautiful person in terms of her soul, and I'm sure whoever her boyfriend is (assuming she has one) is very happy with her. HOWEVER, based on that cover photo, she does not have a bikini body. Period. If that's a "bikini body," I have a bridge on Mars I'm considering putting up for sale.
I think a 34" waist is excessive for a woman. She has obviously too much BF.
She is fat. I just saw her pics. She does have certain sexual attraction but is a fatty. She looks nice in specific type of dress but in a bathing suit would have me turning my head away. Youth is on her side now but that pansa will ruin her once youth leaves her and she is still fat.
As for the rest, SI can do whatever.
NB: I still vividly recall Cheryl's fishnet bathing suit faux pax from back in the day. Thanks.
In Cheryl Tiegs' defense, it's not like she tweeted this sentiment, unsolicited. She was walking the red carpet and an entertainment 'reporter' pointedly asked her to comment on the cover. From that point on, there's a lot of grey area.
First of all, they deliberately asked Tiegs' because they knew she would give the controversial click-bait answer. Tiegs' either plain old just DGAF, because she's nearing 70 and is also the real life Patsy Stone from Absolutely Fabulous, OR, she's not media savvy enough to know that the entertainment tabloid papparatzzface was using her for click-bait, and thus should have given her the finger in the form of the canned and diplomatic response of "I think the cover is beautiful!". Someone like Cindy Crawford would have known better.
Second, Dr. Oz is a quack and a shill and anybody that cites him as a source automatically loses credibility. Also, so-called 'experts' who use arbitrary numbers as benchmarks for health...you should have a <35 inch waist; you should weigh 120 pounds; you should eat no more than 1200 calories a day; your BMI should be 22...generally have their heads up their asses.
Third, we are talking about the world of fashion models, not about health. I love when sanctimonious pearl clutchers turn these stories into hand wringing discussions about people's health. No one gives a damn about anyone's health. People just don't want to see fatties on the covers of magazines. As far as Sports Illustrated being a magazine about health & fitness, yeah m'kay. It's the People magazine of sports. It's not a fitness magazine. And the reason there are bikini models on the cover is because the target demo is men, and men like eye candy, which is all fine and good, but don't let's not pretend that anybody gives 2 farts about anybody's cardiovascular fitness, cholesterol, or propensity for the 'beetus.
Fourth, nobody in the fashion industry should be talking about anybody's health. We are talking about an industry that has promoted unhealthy body standards for CENTURIES...from the rib crushing corsets of the Victorian age for women pursuing a 19-inch waist, to the Twiggy era in the 60s, to heroin chic in the 90s. The fashion industry is notorious for taking already naturally svelte models, and encouraging them to get even more skinny by going on restrictive diets, diet pills, cigarettes, and drugs. And in this age, despite all that, the models are still photoshopped. As fat as we are in the first world, don't we also have the highest rates of eating disorders? Anorexia and bulimia are rampant, and now even in men. We can then argue that having a plus sized model on the cover of a magazine IS a good thing if only to balance out all that other bullshchidt.
Fifth, I know it's from the bygone era of Mad Men, but Cheryl Tiegs once shilled for Virginia Slims, so I think she needs to keep her Restylane injected lips shut.
SO HEALTHY.
/end thread. Cheryl Tiegs needs to take several seats. No sense in feigning concern for others' health. Ain't no one give a **** about random people's health, so the "it's unhealthy" criticisms and hubbub over a plus size model being on the front cover this one time can take their fake concern elsewhere.
Her comments are unfortunate. I get what she is trying to say, but I think the SI model doesn't fit what Tiegs is talking about.
Being obese is unhealthy. The plus model is not obese. She's ample. I think one can be that size and be healthy and active.
I think the model is very pretty, and her figure, though ample, is pleasing and I would think alluring to a lot of men. And that's the point. Representing all women who are not unhealthy for lifestyle reasons.
I don't know what her waist size is. That can vary so much, depending on height and body shape. Looks like she's an hourglass or pear, so it's possible her waist is smaller than 35", but if she's 6 ft tall, her waist is very likely larger than 35".
Dr. Oz gives the 35" inche waist, BTW, depending on height, I believe. It relates to where a person carried FAT on his/her body. Because midsection fat indicates that inside the body, there is more fat around the major organs. That model looks like she carries her weight mainly in her hips and thighs.
Tiegs looks great for her age, BTW. No plastic surgery, I think, either. Maybe some injections or something, but no surgery. She's a health nut and into natural things. She has a to-die-for house, too.
no. it would be better to encourage the cotton ball eating models to stop doing that and get up to a healthy weight. not start to glamorize being overweight because underweight models have been the thing for so long and now it is the overweight models turn.
no.
promote healthy lifestyle. the end.
Do you seriously think that girls and women are going to see Ashley Graham on an SI cover and say, "Oh, I want to look like that, so I'm going to do everything possible to achieve her body."? When it comes to plus sized models on magazine covers and commercials (e.g. Dove soap, Lane Bryant), people get straight up PARANOID about the supposed glamorization of fat, which is hilarious. How many women do you think make New Year's resolutions every January to get up to a size 16?
It is not Sports Illustrated's (or Ashley Graham's) responsibility to "promote healthy lifestyle", and it certainly is not their goal to promote an unhealthy one. SI is not a health & fitness lifestyle magazine. Putting a plus size model on the cover of the bikini issue is not some message to people that fat is healthy. If there's any message at all when it comes to an SI swimsuit edition cover, it's that there is a spectrum when it comes to body sizes and types, and what the typical heterosexual male sports fan finds sexy. The statement being made has nothing to do with "health". I love when people invoke that word in these types of stories, without any qualification or sense of context.
Lol, so despite your initial "in her defense" proclamation, you've come to the same "she should keep her mouth shut" conclusion that many others did here--and did succinctly.
Too funny
Lol, yes. Absolutely. What is so difficult to grasp here? Tiegs should keep her mouth shut about what's "healthy". Models are the last people who should be doling out advice about what is considered "healthy".
At the same time, as a mature adult who is capable of looking at all the intricacies and angles of a story, I am willing to consider the full context of where and how Tiegs came to make her statement...a trolling, schidt-stirring E! reporter, at a pre-Oscar party, wording the question specifically to garner the exact response that we got. Like I said in my initial post...GREY AREAS.
Is that succinct enough for you? What's the point of having pages of responses that are all "I agree" and "I disagree"? What an interesting and productive discussion.
What's the big deal? She's a beautiful woman. Most people aren't the stick figures depicted in fashion mags, and it's refreshing to see a major outlet admit it once in a while.
If you had bothered to google Chery Tiegs you would have found that she is 68. And that the picture used is not at all representative of her current look, in addition to horrible lighting, I suspect that picture is photoshopped by someone to make her look bad, or was taken shortly after an illness or surgery.
As far as Ashley Graham, 34" is a huge waist for a young woman. Mine is 31" and I am 6'1". I saw the cover photo of her, it is very criticism worthy given it is a sports magazine that promotes healthy life styles, imo.
eta: Reminds me when I was a kid, I would read the letters to the editor in SI, after the swimsuit edition, they would always include a couple that said that they were cancelling their subscription because women in bikinis had no business being in a sports magazine. I would expect this year there would be some letters claiming they were cancelling their subscription because fat women in bikinis had no business being on the cover of a sports magazine.
Ashley Graham actually does live a healthy lifestyle. She works out with a trainer daily and while I can't attest to her eating habits I'm sure she eats right as well. She has said that in order for her to stay very slim she basically has to starve herself, and that's pretty unhealthy if you ask me. Some women are just not built to be slim, you can be overweight and still be healthier than a slim person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
