Let's stop using the terms "skinny" and "curvy"

No it isn't. "Political correctness", to the point it means anything at all, is an attempt to avoid language which is deemed to be offensive or otherwise undesirable. This is G-Max being absurdly literal-minded. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being absurdly literal-minded? :scan: Assimilated.
 
Political correctness has nothing to do with being absurdly literal-minded?
Unless you think that the term "differently abled" is more literal than "cripple", I don't see how it could be any other way. If anything, "politically correct" language is market by an unusual degree of circuitousness.
 
Everyone has curves but not everyone is curvy. Everyone has skin but not everyone is skinny. Everyone has bones but not everyone is boney. Everyone has fat but not everyone is fat. Everyone has muscle but not everyone is muscular. Do you propose we all describe people by their precise height, weight, chest size, waist size, and body fat percentage?
90-60-90 would be a good start.
The problem there is that the terms are biased. I'd like to replace them with unbiased terms.
Biased? :rotfl:
Unless you think that the term "differently abled" is more literal than "cripple", I don't see how it could be any other way. If anything, "politically correct" language is market by an unusual degree of circuitousness.
Idiocy, you mean. The whole point of being blind is that you are not able to see, so saying 'disabled' is proper. :cringe:
 
Unless you think that the term "differently abled" is more literal than "cripple", I don't see how it could be any other way. If anything, "politically correct" language is market by an unusual degree of circuitousness.

It's their claim that these [and other] types of description are more appropriate that makes them literal. It's that their method of definition is the correct one, and they won't budge from it - pedantically arguing for definitions based on a moral viewpoint is just as literal as pedantically arguing for definitions based on accuracy.
 
Idiocy, you mean. The whole point of being blind is that you are not able to see, so saying 'disabled' is proper. :cringe:
True, but it could equally be observed that none of us can fly, and in that sense we are all disabled. So I think there's a genuine debate to be had around how we understand disability, and what implications that has. Not that I think that insisting on terms like "differently abled" actually contributes to that, mind, but, well, there you go.

It's their claim that these [and other] types of description are more appropriate that makes them literal. It's that their method of definition is the correct one, and they won't budge from it - pedantically arguing for definitions based on a moral viewpoint is just as literal as pedantically arguing for definitions based on accuracy.
That isn't what "literal" means. I'm honestly not even sure why you think it does.
 
And what exact bias are you talking about, the bias of being accurate?

I mean that "curvy" is an inherently positive word when describing women, which is why fat chicks use it to describe themselves, whereas "skinny" has historically held negative connotations, but is used by some people to describe slim, lean, or athletic women.

No, people are talking about appearance. Body fat percentages do not always correspond to appearances.

"Appearance" has nothing to do with it. People are talking about body types in terms of body fat percentages. If you want to seriously tell me that Amanda Beard and Anna Kournikova have the same body fat percentage as a Bridget Jones-era Renée Zellweger, then... well... I've no idea what to tell you.
 
The term "bony" is stupid and meaningless. All humans have bones.
 
The term "bony" is stupid and meaningless. All humans have bones.

Yeah but not all of us look like walking skeletons.

anorexia.jpg
 
You assume that I ever wanted to be that literal-minded in the first place.

"Bony", in the context of body types, means that the person is so underweight that their bone structure is more clearly apparent than it should be.
 
My point is that there are not many men who like bony girls, but there are a lot of guys who prefer lean meat, and our preferences should not be misrepresented just so fat chicks can feel better about themselves.

You're saying this in the context of a society whose media massively favors thin women? A society where overweight women often feel depressed and self-hating as a result of their body type? What the hell are you on about?
 
You're saying this in the context of a society whose media massively favors thin women? A society where overweight women often feel depressed and self-hating as a result of their body type? What the hell are you on about?

He's on about males real preferences, not social norms. Just because mid-size women feel unattractive, doesn't mean men find them unattractive.
 
This chart is useful me thinks?

Female_Body_Size.jpg
 
That model doesn't look athletic to me, just anorexic.

Skinny doesn't convey any connotation on toning, at least as far as I know.
 
He's on about males real preferences, not social norms. Just because mid-size women feel unattractive, doesn't mean men find them unattractive.

What does that have to do with the term "curvy?" :confused:
 
Some of us like curves :)

Indeed; so whence come G-Max's objection to the use of a term to describe a body type that so many men find attractive?

What threw me off about his posting was his fixation on the term as if it was a term meant to pander to larger women, to avoid hurting their feelings. I mean, what?
 
Back
Top Bottom