Wednesday, December 10, 2008

GG is slender

Let's do a little survey.
If you look at this nude picture of the model GG, does she seem "worryingly thin" to you?
Apparently it does to several people. Which puzzles me, because while she is clearly very slender, she also seems to me to be obviously healthy (even very healthy), and not pathologically thin in any way. I asked Pascal, who is a doctor, and he has the same opinion. But then he asked an older family member, who has the first opinion. So I decided to do a little informal survey, just to see if we can shed a little light on this puzzling diversion of opinions.
I am suspecting an emotional over-reaction here. For decades fashion models got thinner and thinner, and now there's a strong reaction against it which goes a bit too far.


Anonymous said...

Well, I do see her (GG) as being a bit too skinny, just verging with being slim in an unhealthy way... :)

Luke said...

GG looks fine. She's got a full face, you get a hint of her ribs not the full monty, and her upper arms are developed not bone-thin. I can't imagine her to be anything but normal and healthy.

Bruce said...

She looks perfectly healthy. People's sense of these things has been distorted by the fact that most people in the west are over-weight, and these are the people they see everyday. Thus, overweight becomes the "normal" because it is so common.

Anonymous said...

For those who are healthy themselves she looks good [damn good]for those not so fit maybe a little jealously is what they feel.No worries about her ballooning up to the Oprah 200 pound level. cjg of eroticalee

Fred said...

That's just her body type. She may be on the slender side of normal human but, so is Daryl Hannah.

The problem is not that GG and Daryl Hanah are that body type but, others with different body types are unnaturally forced into that shape.

Sukiho said...

shes fine, you could force feed her and she wouldn't put on weight, people generally want everyone to look and think the same as them or they think they are abnormal, but theres a huge amount of variation amongst humans

mary said...

Mmm... I wouldn't say "unhealthy" but to me she looks a bit childish, which is a bit unnerving. I wonder if that's the "emotional over-reaction".

kronostar said...

I'd say she looks healthy and is obviously not anorexic. As others have mentioned her skin looks very healthy along with that wonderful warm glow from her face. My sister has the same body type though possibly even thinner.
I wouldn't be surprised though if a BMI test would label her as underweight. However BMI is not a universal indicator as some would believe.
IMHO she seems to be the healthy, happy, lovely girl that we've come to expect and appreciate from Domai.

Alex said...

I would say that the knee jerk was "too thin", but you look and see that, as was said before, she's not a skeleton with skin over it.

For personal taste's I'd still opt for too thin. Unhealthy? No.

If anything looks unhealthy it's that "Diamond T" in the Lee series.

Ray said...

Lots of active young people are thinner than their older couch-potato relatives. It isn't unhealthy.
This young lady looks fine.

And for those who aren't old enough to remember, Diamond T once built very reliable trucks. A trucking company in my home town used them for years.

Alex said...


It's not the age, it's my heritage. Show me a Thornycroft, Antar, Foden, Scammel, Austin Tilley. I know exactly what it is and can peg its vintage in a flash. However, show me a Diamond T, REO, or any of the other "classic" US trucks and I'd be stumped.

For 90's trucks it's a different story, I can look at import derived US trucks and tell if it was originally an Iveco, Izisu, Volvo or UNIC.

Of course, no matter what, I only really have a west coast view of things. I know that has a big impact. About a year ago someone said Ford had 50% of the market. I thought they'd recovered, not lost to that point as here the roads are dominated by Toyota brands (Scion, Lexus et al) and BMW's.

The Diamond T has a strange radiator grille, wrapping far around the side of the long nose in a quite un-European way.


kronostar said...

Well you could always placate some of the critics by featuring some healthy chubbier Domai girls. ;)
Though to be honest most artistic nudes seem to favour thin very young looking models.

eolake said...

"I wouldn't say "unhealthy" but to me she looks a bit childish, which is a bit unnerving. I wonder if that's the "emotional over-reaction"."

Well, if it is, I wouldn't blame you. In the last ten years, the hysteria about age has gotten worse and worse. Just think about how people don't dare photograph on the streets anymore for fear a child might be in the picture!

In the seventies nobody worried about it.

(For the record I have documents as usual, and this model is 21.)

If I sound defensive, I'm sorry. But I'm sick of being worried about ages of models. It's nerve-wracking. And all for nothing. If we magically took away *all* images from the whole world of people under 21, nude or not, it would not help the problem of child abuse *one bit*. It might even make it worse because perverts would not have a harmless outlet.

Magnetic Mary said...

(same mary as above)

"If I sound defensive, I'm sorry."

No, it's ok, you don't sound defensive. Of course there is much hysteria around, now Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson must also be protected. I didn't think for a minute that she was actually a minor.

Steve said...

I don't think she is an unhealthy skinny, and I can see where the face, in combination with her body, can make her look younger than she is, but I think her pose adds to this thought some people have of her being too skinny. There are more sharper angles than I would expect and the neck area can give a thought of being too skinny, but that is just my opinion.

Gerhard said...

No, she doesn't seem unhealthy or too skinny.

Bert said...

She looks great, any objection would be a matter of taste, IMHO.

I always had a thing for slender women, yet I can't stand the sight of Kate Moss and other models with an "heroin-addict look". Big difference in my eye (thankfully, things are said to be changing in the fashion industry).

Hannah said...

She's slim, she looks very fit, her skin glows - sure, she's tiny, but it looks like it's her body type.

eolake said...

Glows, exactly. Nobody undernourished radiates like that.

Well, all right, I think we have a good idea here, thanks to everybody.

Anonymous said...

A body mass index of less than 18.5 is considered unhealthy. If she is 5 feet 4 that would be 107 pounds. I personally think that GG might "glow" now, but she would look much nicer if she added a few pounds.

brian said...

Glows, exactly. Nobody undernourished radiates like that.

There was an episode of House where someone had a disease that gave them that glow. With medical shows you never know how much is true, though. Unless you're a doctor. And even then you're not going to be expert in every branch of medicine. Even Doogie had to specialize.

Alex said...

Ah, but House probably does know everything, his Valet was Jeeves after all.

I still can't get used to Hugh Laurie with an American accent, I just always think of him as a jolly, good hearted chinless wonder, as in Blackadder III or Jeeves and Wooster.

Still, he does write interesting spy stories, The Gun Seller was a good read.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

Some things related to weight are very deeply cultural:

Thanks for the feedback, y'all. That was interesting.

Anonymous said...

I am one of the people who thought GG is too thin (I called her emaciated). This picture is of Karen Carpenter on her wedding day in 1980. She looks beautiful, radiant (is that the same as "glow"?). At this point she had been anorexic for years. She died three years later at age 33.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

My immediate opinion: this woman, Karen Carpenter (an actress? don't know her) looks markedly unhealthy. Her facial features are way too hollow. Nothing in the cheeks but the bones, and a chin that could take somebody's eye out. I don't need to see her naked to heavily suspect anorexia.

Plus, she looks like she's marrying Ken and gloating at poor dumped Barbie. If this ain't a subliminal confession, I don't know what is!
(Or is the guy with plastic BLOND hair Blaine the surfer, Barbie's new gigolo? Or Fred, from the Scooby-gang?...)

So, Anon, I fully agree with you about Karen Carpenter. But not about GG.

On a side note, three years is a long time by anorexia standards. A woman could well look reasonably healthy one day, and die three years later. You don't need to waste away and lose all your muscle tissue, anyway. All it takes is a "good" hypoglycemia; or a ketonic acidosis, a metabolic imbalance caused by acute fasting, as is common with the ill-reputed "Atkins diet".

I've already commented about the Atkins diet on this blog, so I won't say it all again. Suffice to say it IS very efficient for losing weight, yes, but at the price of great personal danger. You could literally "wake up dead one morning".

Whatever a girl/woman's body aspect, no "beauty standard" is worth dying for.
Yes, I fully understand how such dramas could make some very sensible people oversensitive about thin babes. That older family member Eo mentioned? A person whose sound judgement I hold in great esteem.
But I also trust my own. :-)

Joe said...

GG seems to be a healthy well proportioned young woman. I think she is a great example of how her body type should look.

Joe said...

The model Ginger is a example of a heavier weight girl. I would not call her fat, but would think that her life style is more sedimentary. I would expect to find that her life is less physically active.

Is she less or more healthy?

eolake said...

Ginger for non-members:

basil said...

If GG popped up from my Xmas stocking I would definitely not be asking Santa to swap her for a chubbier model!

eolake said...

Nah, I too might ask her to stick around for a round of backgammon.

Monsieur Beep said...

Also we need to consider that for some thin persons including myself there exists a maximum weight limit, ie their weight is capped at a certain level which cannot be exceeded.
Talking about myself, I'm lucky to be healthily underweight, my weight is naturally capped at 70 Kg, and has been capped at this level for decades. I used to be bothered because of this since people were always asking if I was sick or something. Today I call myself lucky that I'm healthy and can eat as much as I want and anything I want. Yet the cap won't budge!

Alex said...


You are lucky. I was stable at 145lbs all through college, and until I emigrated. Then I had two stable weights, my UK weight was 145lbs, and my US weight was 155lbs, it took a week to adjust to each country.

After the 2months here, 2 months there ended I stayed at 155lbs for several years. After having my first kid, and a change of job my weight adjusted to 160.

Two years ago I lost my job, and while waiting for the next one I put on 10lbs, and it's stuck.

I am trying to match my previous lifestyle, but can't seem to get back.

Life is strange at times.

eolake said...

I wish I had a cap at, say, 90 kilos.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

My brother is just like you. His weight is more stable than depleted Uranus!

Alex pondered...
Then I had two stable weights, my UK weight was 145lbs, and my US weight was 155lbs, it took a week to adjust to each country."

Again proving the beauty of the metric system: there is only one Kilogram! While pretty much every country has its own pound.
Even Lebanon! In fact, 1,514 Lebanese Pounds equal one U.S. Dollar. Pesky inflation...
I'd say your measuring variation when you arrive in the USA could also be called "a slight inflation"? ;-)
My brother was right: everything IS bigger in America!

"I am trying to match my previous lifestyle, but can't seem to get back."
Well, it's quite the challenge with all the junk that food industrials sneak into everything we eat. :-(
In any case, some physical exercise NEVER hurts. No need to run marathons carrying dumbells, either. Just ordinary walking does a LOT of good.
As for food, the rules are simple: the least possible of sweets and fats, prefer fruits and vegetables and meat that's not fatty... and try to eat as natural as possible. The more foods are processed, the more lethal they become. Organic? Ideal.
Well, except for organic marijuana. Still way better that Coke and Heroin, they're filled with toxic additives.

Alex said...

Nice try Pascal.

A UK pint is 20floz, a US pint is 16floz. fl oz are the same. Both have 8 pints to the gallon.

You must be thinking of the difference between the UK stone (14lbs) and the Scottish one (12 lbs).

I put the difference down to diet and lifestyle. In the cooler UK climate I was more active. By dint of city layout I would walk around the whole city doing my Saturday shopping in the UK, in the US(Ca) you drive from one retail park to another to get to the next shop. Heck, once I went to two shops which were 100yds apart, in separate parking lots. I bee-lined from one to the other until I met a barbed wire filled culvert separating the two lots. it was about an 800yd detour to get out one gate, and around to the other, with no sidewalk.

Food, ah, I'm sure there are more alories in fajitas with a couple of Negra Modelo than in fish and chips and a can of Tizer.

Furthermore Well, it's quite the challenge with all the junk that food industrials sneak into everything we eat may seem like a fair comment. However, the change in job has given me a no rail commute option. I used to have a rail/bus commute, and in the evenings I would walk the 4 miles to the train. The job also had a collection of walkable eateries nearby. Now I do walk out to lunch 3 days a week, but there is no walk to the station in the evening. So it's a lifestyle collectively, rather than diet solely. As for exercising, I have enough trouble starting at 6:30, and by the time I'm home at 8pm I have enough energy to deal with getting kids settled for bed, and by the time I get my free time at 10pm I am ready for an hour of reading or TV, then sleep. I know I should make time, I just can't work out when.

James III said...

RE Eolake: "Let's do a little survey.
If you look at this nude picture of the model GG, does she seem "worryingly thin" to you?"

Well, I can't see that picture atm but I've seen her elsewhere and on Domai before. No way would I say she's "worryingly thin".

She definitely a girl with a petite build and very feminine overall. On someone with less a petite build *and/or* less femininity (these are separate variables, not dependent on each other) this *could* be overly thin for optimal health. But on her it's obviously 100% healthy. I can understand some have a *preference* for a different build, but that doesn't mean she's "worryingly thin".

She has the glowing taut skin, not at all sickly looking, also good muscle tone and a nice round (albeit petite like the rest of her) butt.

James III said...

As to a couple other comments I'll give my true uncensored opinion although it'll likely be controversal. I'm not aiming these comments squarely at the people quoted below, they merely sparked the discussion.

Mary said: "Mmm... I wouldn't say "unhealthy" but to me she looks a bit childish, which is a bit unnerving. I wonder if that's the "emotional over-reaction"."

Yes GG looks very youthful but she is obviously sexually matured so I don't see any reason to be squimish.

Women are *typical* at their peak of physical beauty between the ages of 16-27. Not that older women can't be dead-drop gorgeous, by they typical drop from their *personal* peak of beauty going into their 30's. For obvious reasons only 18+ is appropriate for nude modeling (among other things), but a well cared for and fit 18-21 year old is *physically* indistinguishable from a 16-17 year old. You wouldn't be able to guess their age by looks alone.

Most people premature age themselves from crappy diets, lack of exercise, sedentary lifestyle, partying, drinking/smoking, etc... Then the few who maintain themselves are lambasted for looking "childish"? That's twisted if you ask me!

I can relate as I'm a 27 years old male, 6ft tall, 160 lbs and I annoyingly get a lot of comments that I'm sickly underweight and look childish, which invariable comes from flabby, overweight, wrinkling, balding people who didn't/don't take care of themselves well.

I imagine if I lived somewhere else where over 66% of the people weren't overweight (and predicted to swell to 75% soon) like the U.S.A. I wouldn't stand out as being "underweight".

According to the BMI charts (which are a bunch of fuey IMO anyways, don't account for musculature, etc...) I'm slightly above the middle of the ideal range, although I look probably closer to 140lbs (vs. my true 160) because I'm very solid and not flabby.

I understand GG's petiteness and femininity makes her look even younger then her general fitness exudes. But this is a natural build that will stay for life and it's refreshing to see femininity in media vs. the high profile female models and celebrities who more *often* are on the masculinized side.

Most high fashion models, for instance, are somewhat masculinely built (larger waist, broad ribcage) and less petite in build (vs. GG) which makes could make being similarly thin unhealthy for them.

Curiously I did once see a model who was both feminine and naturally petite and the media unduely singled her out for being sickly underweight over the majority of other models who are obviously worse (do to *forcing* themselves to be underweight for their innately larger build).

James III said...

.... continued

Pascal [P-04referent] said:
"I've already commented about the Atkins diet on this blog, so I won't say it all again. Suffice to say it IS very efficient for losing weight, yes, but at the price of great personal danger. You could literally "wake up dead one morning"."

Nowhere have I seen any signs of such danger for the atkins diet. The only *inclusive* studies being touted as proof against such a diet were produced by cherry picking data by anti-fat people, thus full-filling their confirmation bias. Studies showing pro low-carb are brushed aside by the media and much of the medical association because it doesn't meet their preconceived notions. For an updated view on lowcarb diets I'd recommend you check out Dr. Mike Eades blog at

Dr. Atkin emphasized high protein, fat in moderation, and low carb which isn't such a radical concept. Low carb doesn't mean you have to avoid all vegetables. Most non-starchy/sugary vegetables are fine in quantity, and some of the less sugary fruits in moderation, like berries.

The whole food pyramid is not scientific at ALL. Only very recently in human history have people begun consuming large amounts of grains. Contrary to the lies spread by some, Atkins died from a slip and fall on ice at the age of 72, and not from overdosing on fat/cholesterol.

Personally I think moderate carb intake may be useful for those doing a lot of endurance athletics, but if not being used for energy, carb's are prioritized for fat storage so *most* people would be best off lowering their carb consumption and increasing their protein/fat.

James III said...

Small correction on my atkins comment. Dr. Atkin emphasized *moderate* (correction) protein, fat in moderation, and low carb.... He recommended more protein than the food pyramid, but not a whole lot more.

Mogle said...

I think GG is as near "perfection" as I've seen and obviously healthy as well. However Mary's comment about her having a childish look has made me think. Men in all cultures are attracted to women who are young and slim (with the possible exception of some africans and their over-weight seraglios) I think this model is lucky to look the way she does.

mogler said...

I think that GG is as near perfection as I've seen and healthy as well. However Mary's comment that the model had a childish look is quite true. Men in all cultures (with the excepton of african potentates and their over-weight seraglios) have favoured young slim and often childish looking women. I think this model is very lucky to look the way she does.