kitty
Problem is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. A celeb makes an effort to lose weight or enhance their physique and gets slated for it, they put on weight and they're sent to hell.................probably all written by some ugly fat bint who sits at a computer drinking high street bought latte in a paper cup and eating a blueberry muffin wondering why she can't lose weight herself so the little yellow demon sits on her fingers and makes her type hideous comments.
That is SO true; how often do you read, on one page, that So-and-so has become "worryingly thin," then two pages later, Ms X is slated for "ballooning" (what a cliche...
) to a size 10!!! Then, they've got someone else a few pages later trying to persuade us that a size 14 is normal!
We all know that a size 14 can look "big" on one female and slim on another - even two size ten women together can look quite different; one will look bigger than the other, but how can it possibly be right that a woman who "goes up" to a 10 is seen as a pariah? Does it matter what the label says as long as it fits?
As for dress sizes themselves, they seem to have changed out of all dimension - about 30 years ago, a size 8 was 30-20-32, a 10 was 32-22-34, a 12 was 34-24-36, a 14 was 36-26-38 etc. I used to read my mum's Slimming magazines, and that size 10-12 was seen as ideal. Now the sizing is completely different - a size 8 means a 26" waist, as opposed to the 20" of yesterday. Does that mean that today's proverbial "size Zero" (a four in the UK) was the size 8 of yesterday?
Like Dawn says, it's a no-win situation. I'll stick to the crossword and the funnies!