I don't usually like to focus on things that "bother me", but there is something that has been bothering me for awhile now--in the same way that it bothers me when people say "imparticular" instead of "in particular". Or when people call me "Sweetie".
I ain't yo' sweetie.
Anyway, I'd like to talk about this idea that “curvy” somehow is now a euphemism for “fat”.
Now, I have no intention of showing you pictures of "fat girls who aren't actually fat", and then saying things like:
"OMG SHE'S SO BEAUTIFULLLLL!"
or
"Let's compare her to an anorexic girl and see which one is more BEAUTIFULLLLLL!"
or
"Marilyn Monroe was curvy and she was so BEAUTIFULLLLLL!"
Sorry to disappoint you, Tyra Banks, but that's not what I'm here for.
No, I'm here to tell you that it is mathematically incorrect to be calling so-called "curvy" girls "curvy". So you better stop it.
To begin, let's look at a standard woman's sizing chart:
Numeric
|
Waist
|
Hip
|
00
|
23.5
|
33
|
0
|
24.5
|
34
|
2
|
25.5
|
35
|
4
|
26.5
|
36
|
6
|
27.5
|
37
|
8
|
28.5
|
38
|
10
|
30
|
39.5
|
12
|
31.5
|
41
|
14
|
33
|
42.5
|
16
|
34.5
|
44
|
18
|
36.5
|
46
|
Now, if your idea of a good time is creating tables in Excel like me, you would find that the waist-to-hip ratio is smaller for the smaller sizes:
Numeric
|
Waist
|
Hip
|
Ratio
|
00
|
23.5
|
33
|
0.712121212
|
0
|
24.5
|
34
|
0.720588235
|
2
|
25.5
|
35
|
0.728571429
|
4
|
26.5
|
36
|
0.736111111
|
6
|
27.5
|
37
|
0.743243243
|
8
|
28.5
|
38
|
0.75
|
10
|
30
|
39.5
|
0.759493671
|
12
|
31.5
|
41
|
0.768292683
|
14
|
33
|
42.5
|
0.776470588
|
16
|
34.5
|
44
|
0.784090909
|
18
|
36.5
|
46
|
0.793478261
|
Here is a graphic representation of this phenomenon:
(I'm very sorry, but this masterpiece is not for sale.)
As you can see, there is a greater curve of the body to the smaller size because it has to cover more distance in a shorter period than the larger size (because you don't also get taller if you get fatter, or shorter if you get skinnier, except for kids and old people).
Put even more plainly, if your body type follows this sort of chart, if you gained a lot of weight, your waist to hips would eventually be 1:1 and there would be NO curve; the fatter you were, the less curvy you would be.
And the skinnier you were, the more curvy you would be.
And the skinnier you were, the more curvy you would be.
All right... so I know that a lot of people put on weight differently, and I know that a lot of people have different body types and may not follow sizing charts exactly. Some people are shaped like this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
And you are all beautiful in your own special way. (At least to your mother. Or maybe to a blind person.)
But the point I was trying to make was that sometimes (maybe even usually), girls who fit smaller sizes are actually curvier than girls who fit larger sizes.
Hence, it is NOT correct to use "curvy" as a synonym for "overweight", as this is frequently inaccurate, misleading, and it is causing our youth to fail the math portion of their SATs. (I mean, probably.)
Unless, of course, you're talking about "curvy" as a description of the body from the side view:
Then I'd be ok with that.
