Britney Spears out of shape?!?

I was reading this Associated Press article earlier:

An out-of-shape, out-of-touch Britney Spears delivered what was destined to be the most talked-about performance of the MTV Video Music Awards — but for all the wrong reasons. […] And, perhaps most unforgivable given her once-taut frame, she looked embarrassingly out of shape.

I have one thing to say to Associated Press & CNN who carried the article: GET A CLUE.

I am by no means a Spears fan (she seems to have an IQ of 50, just like her friends Lindsay and Paris). But calling her body out of shape, is preposterous. Look at her body, of that mother of two, once more, carefully. That’s not an out of shape body. That’s a NORMAL body. Not thin, but normal. Since when “normal” is a negative term? If only 1/3 of the women were like that the world would have been a healthier place.

I demand that the journalist who wrote that trash publicly apologizes.

6 Comments »

Shelley wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 4:55 AM PST:

The person who wrote the article is either an obese woman, an anorexic woman, or a very gay man. No normal, heterosexual man would make such negative comments about Britney’s body.


Adam S wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 5:43 AM PST:

I hate to sound like a jackass, but the fact is Britney *is* twice the size that she USED to be. Unfortunately, she is being judged based on an artificial, idealistic/unrealistic image that she herself helped to create and so I feel no pity for her. She sold the fact that she was unbelievably sexy, which, as on right now, she most definitely is not – and that’s not just because of her looks, it’s because she’s a vapid, slutty, lip-syncher who appears to be a vacant parent. And for a “pop” star – she’s fat.

I think most guys realize that real women are not the photoshopettes that prance around on MTV and magazine covers, but expect that if you go on MTV and wear a skimpy outfit that shows your belly, you’re not going to jiggle like unset jello.

She is being judged on the same criteria she’s always been, based on the only “talent” she’s ever really proven to have: looking good (which she no longer does). Britney is over for a very large chunk of her once immense fanbase.


Thom Holwerda wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 10:21 AM PST:

Well, Adam kind of said what I wanted to say already.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 11:49 AM PST:

I disagree. She still looks good. Most men would still sleep with her for the way she looks and not just because of who she is. She IS still a beautiful woman.

The fact that she used to be prettier, younger, thinner, should NOT be the basis of this kind of criticism. She is older, she has had two children. Based on these FACTS, she is still AS SHE SHOULD BE.

So, just because the pop stardom requires a certain kind of looks does not mean that this person is “out of shape”, because she is not. You should be judging her according to what’s generally normal, not what the stupid pop culture requires of her.


Adam S wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 2:09 PM PST:

@Eugenia: But people don’t and they won’t, so your argument is wasted breath. Also, you ignored all of what I said: she sold being sexy, and she’s not sexy anymore based on the standards she helped create. If she were my girlfriend, I might feel differently, but she’s not, so I don’t.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 10th, 2007 at 2:12 PM PST:

Adam, I would not be writing this blog post if the Associated Press article was written like this instead:

“she looked embarrassingly out of shape — at least for the unrealistic pop stardom needs”.

That disclosure should have been in the article. It would have been the professional thing to do. As it’s written right now, the article ITSELF is ALSO guilty of creating the standards you are talking about. And that’s bad journalism.

That’s my point.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.