I really like your suggestions about word-choice and the details. I'll definitely work those in (or out). :)
I generally don't make it a point to counter an editorial point. I am not defending the size-0 in the sense I think you were wrong as an editor. You were totally right as an editor. :)
I am going to edit the detail out because I don't want people to get hung up on whether or not it is realistic and because, as you mentioned, I agree that it is unnecessary (thank you for helping me see this!), but it is important to me to make this point in an educational sense, because I think that weights and body size is something that the media has severely misconstrued and I think it is dangerous:
My size 2 pants fell clear off of me at 116 pounds. I'm someone who is a size 4 at 128 (still too thin) and looks fantastic and extremely fit at about 135-140.
You're right in that frame and proportions factor in considerably. I'm guessing that your bones are probably much smaller than mine and you are two inches shorter. The point I was trying to make (and didn't succeed in making) by including it, was that it concerns me that numbers between 110-120 are often touted as 'ideal weights', especially in the media. They might be for some, but for others, like my extremely athletic 5'4" sister and I, they are size-0 or below and very unhealthy weights. My body was starting to shut down on me at that point; I was no longer menstruating.
Like I said, I agree that that detail detracts from the rest of the piece, but unfortunately, it is not remotely unrealistic. Thankfully, that struggle is a good seven years behind me.
I generally don't make it a point to counter an editorial point. I am not defending the size-0 in the sense I think you were wrong as an editor. You were totally right as an editor. :)
I am going to edit the detail out because I don't want people to get hung up on whether or not it is realistic and because, as you mentioned, I agree that it is unnecessary (thank you for helping me see this!), but it is important to me to make this point in an educational sense, because I think that weights and body size is something that the media has severely misconstrued and I think it is dangerous:
My size 2 pants fell clear off of me at 116 pounds. I'm someone who is a size 4 at 128 (still too thin) and looks fantastic and extremely fit at about 135-140.
You're right in that frame and proportions factor in considerably. I'm guessing that your bones are probably much smaller than mine and you are two inches shorter. The point I was trying to make (and didn't succeed in making) by including it, was that it concerns me that numbers between 110-120 are often touted as 'ideal weights', especially in the media. They might be for some, but for others, like my extremely athletic 5'4" sister and I, they are size-0 or below and very unhealthy weights. My body was starting to shut down on me at that point; I was no longer menstruating.
Like I said, I agree that that detail detracts from the rest of the piece, but unfortunately, it is not remotely unrealistic. Thankfully, that struggle is a good seven years behind me.
Reply
Leave a comment