OK, so anyone who has read this blog knows that I take issue with the seriously way-too-skinny image that Hollywood loves to promote. Does Angelina need to eat? Yeah. Is Kiera Knightly too skinny? Probably.
Is Britney fat? Uh, no. A bit rounder in the middle than her pre-shaved head meltdown days, but then again the woman has had two kids. By c-section no less. So unless she's goes all Dr. 90210 and has a tummy tuck, she won't ever have those killer abs from years past. Oh, and all her drinking and partying probably isn't helping bring back the six-pack either.
So, for all the naysayers out there calling Britney "fat" .... listen up. The girl is not fat. She's probably all of a size 10. I'd kill to be a size 10 again. [See related story here.]
Granted, she SHOULD NOT have worn that black sequined bikini thing at the VMA's last night. It was unflattering to say the least. But for half the world to jump on the fat-name-calling bandwagon is once again sending the wrong message to young girls everywhere.
I think what Britney needs is a stylist [in addition to a new manager, talent agent and probably a very long vacation in Bora Bora]. The girl is a woman now - with two kids and needs to dress to accent her figure. Black sequined bras and panties need not apply.
ok, i give her semi-props for trying to pull of the lingerie look of the days-long-gone. but i agree. she did not look all that bad. really. yes, she may consider wearing something MORE flattering, but i think the hideous extensions in her hair were more the issue (and NO wonder post-pregnant women feel so lousy....look at what they are up against!) not cool.
ReplyDeleteoh yeah, the extensions/weave was really bad.
ReplyDeleteyep....it's no wonder so many women and girls have body image issues. i don't think she looked fat...she just wore the wrong outfit.