Plenty of VS models have oomph tho.

Agree on the lens distortion here. Not a lot people is looking good from that angle.

I really did not intuit how fat people truly are until I lost about 65kg and got fairly toned and muscular.

I hit 73kg at 188cm at that was with so much added muscle vs prior. If you had taken away all the muscle mass that I had added through my journey I'm confident to say I would have been around 65kg. This was with around 11% body fat.

Rediscovering at my own body in the mirror and seeing what actually skinny was... Completely blew my mind and changed my perspective forever

Isn't that dress covered in fringe? I mean, she's in great shape either way, but fringe all over a dress is bulking.

Most people's legs will jiggle if you shook them, even thin people.

golly that’s not what i understand skinny to mean. i think it’d be odd if “every skinny person is unhealthy” was true by definition

I've been 125 at 5'9", that was my weight after I recovered from disordered eating and until my husband asked me to bulk, so from 20 years old to about 48. Nobody really commented that I was too thin (except husband), I looked slender not skinny skinny, was in shape, worked out. More cardio less weights.

90 lb when having trouble from 16 to 20 - that looked skinny and surely wasn't healthy but I still got my period.

150 now since gaining - aimed for 145, overshot. Still aiming for 145 finally making progress, slowly. People STILL think I am thin. I am not. This is more than I weighed 9 months pregnant and honestly it freaks me out a little. Doctor says it's a healthy weight still though.

ETA - 125 at 5'9" is barely even underweight by BMI. 128 lands in Normal territory.

No. That only happens when there's surplus fat or stretched skin.

Skinny people don't jiggle.

It's really true.

What an awful image format. Why is this still a thing?

Yes, I googled and found similar numbers that would put her at a BMI of 19, which is indeed almost underweight. I don't buy the numbers though. I mean look at the thighs in that picture. She's definitely bigger than the majority of the women at my work, and they're about normal weight. I'd put her at around a BMI of 25 or 174.5 lbs. Not overweight, but definitely not skinny.

Consider the camera angles here as well. The camera is shooting from slightly below which puts emphasis on her thighs and hips with the slight lens distortion.

She’s definitely bigger than the majority of the women at my work, and they’re about normal weight. I’d put her at around a BMI of 25 or 174.5 lbs

This is insane of you.

In the context of the post they clearly were using “skinny” to mean “not plus sized”.

Consider the camera angles here as well. The camera is shooting from slightly below which puts emphasis on her thighs and hips

Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why her face looks so puffy

Her face isn't even part of this conversation. You're just rudely commenting on a woman's body at this point.

How much fat is “surplus”?

Because I think they like it when we complain about it. In that spirit, I LOVE 10,000 pixel tall image posts! They are so easy to view and definitely not annoying.

Right, that's the problem. They were using the word in a way that's inconsistent with the dictionary definition, causing confusion.

Oh absolutly! In fact… I meant the exact opposite of what I said!

Skinny means you can see the bones.

No, it does not. Your opinion of what a relative term means is not fact.

How is arguing what relative terms mean a thing? Skinny means less fat than someone else, usually the "average" which obviously varies wildly from many factors. Fat means fatter than that same idea. The definition will vary person to person. This thread is full of people who confuse their opinion with objective truth.

The trace does not match the photo and is the wrong pose. its squishing her arms and shoulders down and ignoring the twist in her stance, making her chest look blobby.

Aka "skinny"

And unhealthily overweight = "fat"

I wouldn't call it "surplus", mind you. Gimme the ones with a belly, all genders.

This thread is insane. Apparently skinny people can't jiggle because....I guess they're not allowed to have meat and organs and other squishy jiggly things?

Just sexy bones I guess!

I was honestly hopeful coming into this thread only to be confronted a wall of people basically arguing that cartoon bodies are an attainable beauty standard or something?

Wow you cleared up all the confusion immediately with this really clear definition of skinny and fat! WHHOOOAAAA WOWWWEEE /s

Just a bunch of people arguing that Taylor fucking Swift is not skinny.

It's wild.

She's also not unhealthily underweight, and therefore not skinny.

The entire point of the OG post went right over most people's heads.

Skinny = unhealthily underweight.

Fat = unhealthily overweight

Anyone not fitting in the above two categories is "normal".

That's a fair point, though some look amazing either way.

Correct. You could divide "normal" up a bit more with adjectives like "slender" or "husky", but "skinny" and "fat" are on the unhealthy side.

I feel like I'm going insane with this stuff, is there really no better terminology? Because one huge factor with how people look is their general build, like how broad their shoulders are, for example. That, to me, looks like the biggest difference between the illustrations.

That is not a problem except for men who are way more interested being pedantic over semantics than they are in talking about a visual phenomenon. And then then, almost all of them are being dishonest.

There's no real confusion. Anyone who can rub some brain cells together can figure out what was meant. The context is visually demonstrated. It's unmissable since you have to look at it to even know it's time to get uppity about Taylor Swift being called skinny and then pretending like OF COURSE Taylor Swift looks plus size in drawing format since she's not skinny!

This is just straight up a situation where a bunch of neckbeards just want to comment their opinion on a woman's body while pretending like they're upholding the strict rules of language and meaning against unwashed hordes.

This comment caused me such agony that I now have no other option but to draw a bead on you.

Same kind of thing here.

If you compare the drawn body to a real body's actual size and proportions, 'full figure' is basically 'somewhere between normal and a healthy skinny'.

'Tall and thin' is in actuality 'starvation/anorexia/muscular dystrophy/something like that'.

The proportions are fundamentally unrealistic, which, on the one hand, duh, but on the other hand, does literally create an unrealistic body size/shape/proportion standard.

From the photo she would appear to weight more than 130lbs (for 5 10 height). My one daughter is 130 at 5' 8" and looks much skinnier than TS

It’s almost like everyone’s body is different or something. Weird.

Thats not what skinny means.

You've defined skinny as 'medically dangerously low levels of body fat/muscle tissue'.

It is possible to be skinny and healthy.

Ariana Grande is so far beyond skinny that she genuienly needs an immediate medical intervention.

No one said Taylor Swift was plus sized. She is a relatively thin, but healthy weight in that picture.

The whole post was about the "expectation" of skinny people in art. They then proceeded to trace a thin, but not skinny, person in loose clothing.

Not that there aren't body positivity issues in the world, but this post itself seems dishonest overall in its premise and execution.

No way she's 130 in that pic. Not saying that's bad but no way those are the legs of a 130lb 5'10 person

Art is about capturing the feeling of a thing, not recording and replaying the actual thing.

A good drawing discards almost all of the unnecessary information from the real scene. Then you exaggerate to bring out the essence - which lines get thicker, which shades get darker, which features are literally enlarged or shrunken.

That's the labor of the artist, to decide what's relevant and what's not.

The whole point being demonstrated is that someone who is obviously not plus sized in real life will read as plus sized when their silhouette is traced into a drawing. It doesn't matter if they are semantically skinny, thin, or normal, only that they are not plus sized but will be when traced.

So what is the dishonesty you're suddenly detecting? That Taylor Swift is actually not skinny therefore this illusion doesn't work? It's a visual illusion you're claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint. Otherwise this is just throwing things at a wall to see if it will stick. After all, that outfit is clearly not loose fitting, as we can clearly see in the image.

Again, all this "confusion" and "problem" you're detecting are just neckbeards arguing about anything except the actual visual illusion because commenting on the exact right verbiage to categorize women's bodies into is more interesting to them than, you know, visually demonstrating why a theorized visual illusion does not hold.

It's a visual illusion you're claiming is false, so visually demonstrate your counterpoint

The outfit is not as tight fitting as the drawing on the right, and the pose doesn't help. We can all clearly see it in the image. There are plenty of images of her that would look slim even when traced.

I can't upload an image for some reason, but here's a good example.

The drawing on the right, as in the stylized "skinny" one from the comparison drawings? The difference between those two side-by-side pictures is the body, not the tightness of the outfit. Again, the one on the left is traced from the actual photograph. Look at the actual photograph of Taylor Swift in that post. Where do you see a bunch of loose fabric in that oufit's torso? Do you actually think Taylor Swift is swimming in that outfit since she's actually as skinny as she was 13 years ago? Just her legs alone, which are not under that dress, will clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Of course a picture of a much skinnier Taylor Swift will look skinnier than one of a less skinny Taylor Swift. But that has nothing to do with the visual illusion described being apparently dishonest, which was your last assertion after you moved on from the semantics being the whole problem. This has taken quite a journey since your original assertion.

All of this is proving my point that this entire post is only a problem for guys who just want to argue about a woman's body instead of the visual illusion. Not a single person who is arguing about "skinny" vs. "thin" semantics is demonstrating a single thing about how it affects the theorized illusion, that clearly isn't their interest. To them, this post is just an avenue to share "valid opinions" on the right way to describe women's bodies.

The difference between those two side-by-side pictures is the body, not the tightness of the outfit.

Incorrect. Well, you are right in that the body proportions on the right are off compared to the overlay which exacerbates the discrepancy (we'll circle back to that), but the tightness is absolutely different.

Where do you see a bunch of loose fabric in that oufit's torso?

I'm using the bottom photo, with the "skinny" overlay for reference.

Basically the entire white triangle at the far left (her right) above the waist is loose. If you mark her waist at the halfway point between the "skinny" sketch and the photo, that's where her actual waist is. The right (her left) side isn't as egregious, but a significant fraction of the gold portion between the skinny sketch and the photo is loose.

Add to it that, especially with the sequins, the outfit is a relatively thick material, and the discrepancy starts to fade.

Do you actually think Taylor Swift is swimming in that outfit since she's actually as skinny as she was 13 years ago?

I really don't know what you're asking here. I think that the areas where the outfit is loose (at least looser than the skintight skinny sketch) make her waist and torso look bigger than it actually is.

Of course a picture of a much skinnier Taylor Swift will look skinnier than one of a less skinny Taylor Swift.

This is my point. It's only "much skinnier" and "less skinny" when it's a comparison. I'm by no means skinny, but I'm much skinnier than fat people. "Much skinnier" Swift is arguably skinny, "less skinny" Swift is indeed less skinny than skinny Swift, but she is not skinny.

But that has nothing to do with the visual illusion described being apparently dishonest, which was your last assertion

Let's address that directly then. Leaving semantics aside (since I would barely qualify the skinny sketch as "skinny" anyway) the looseness of the outfit that obscures her actual figure gets us about halfway to matching the sketch to start. But that's just one of several factors that contribute to the "illusion". The other factors can be attributed to the pose and scale.

In the original photo, Swift is mid stride. The rotation of her shoulders is notably more extreme than the sketch, which makes them appear narrower as a reference, and that screws up the proportions. Look at her right (our left) shoulder with the overlay, the angle isn't even close between the two, either rotationally or vertically.

Her head is also bent down, making her neck look shorter, which is not reflected in the sketch, further screwing up the proportions throughout the whole thing.

And then the knees. The very top of her patella is below where the very bottom of the sketch's patella would be.

So the shoulders are lower and less angled in the sketch than in the photo, the knees are higher in the sketch than in the photo, and the head is angled in a way that hides the length of the neck. Taken collectively, this is clear evidence that the skinny sketch is scaled too small in the overlay.

If you scaled it up to actually match her body in the photo, and accounted for the looseness of her outfit around her ribcage, the illusion is negligible. The illusion comes from choosing a highly dynamic pose, not reproducing the pose faithfully, and making the outfit in the sketch skintight when the actual outfit is not.

I can't speak for the purely argumentative neckbeards, but I have seen many women of many body shapes both clothed and unclothed, and autistically recognized the difference in silhouette. Additionally, I've done a fair bit of research into anatomical sketching and sewing; more than I've done actual sketching and sewing unfortunately, but I can recognize the relevant issues.

This "illusion" comes from a number of small discrepancies that add up to something that looks significant. Additionally, it is a single, still and, I reiterate, highly dynamic picture. We've seen a thousand pictures and videos of Swift, which means we can construct a mental model which accounts for various outfits and poses.

I didn't want to be mean to OOP, but this is a skill issue as an artist, and a very poor choice of photo to make this point.

If it is true she's 130 at 5 10, she must have really low muscle mass

I'm not the one who brought it up, I'm only disagreeing with an argument that was presented to me. The entire post hinges on an agreement that she is skinny. And yeah, the post is rude. I normally never comment on people's body out of nowhere, and I never even cared about her weight in the first place.

I don't know how you can say "her face isn't part of this conversation" when the conversation is about whether somebody looks skinny or not. You brought the camera angle argument up and her face is furthest from the camera, yet it's still not the face of a skinny person.

Thanks for bringing the whole point of the post back around!

My autism is too strong here. Did not get whether you were sarcastic or not here.

Not sure if that's a fair comparison. That looks like Japanese cartoon style, which is of course going to be stylized, but also visit Japan and you will see that average figure there is skinnier than Taylor Swift in the photo

Edit: wording

Sure, but that's not the point of this post. It's a reminder that draws (haha) attention to the fact that art isn't necessarily a literal 1:1 copy of real life and that we shouldn't compare ourselves or others to idealised or stylised artistic depictions, nor judge ourselves on them.