If there is a woman in the known universe who has not complained in the Daily Mail that she’s too fat, would she please make herself known to the editor? The paper’s tenacious staff manage to find one virtually every week, but there is a danger that stocks are becoming unsustainable.
Very often this woman is Arabella Weir, the actress. Sometimes it’s the Mail reporter Claudia Connell, who keeps a wardrobe full of different-sized clothes to keep up with her yo-yo dieting. And last week it was the broadcaster Penny Smith.
There was a huge picture of Penny in the paper on Thursday, alongside the headline: “Why do we women HATE our bodies?” Now, I have examined that picture in great detail, and really cannot see the problem. When Penny does the pinch-an-inch fat test, she must use a micrometer. But apparently her arms aren’t thin enough, she wants longer legs, her hands are like shovels, her tummy is too round, and her bottom is heading south (possibly to find a better job).
Advertisement
There is one school of thought that women bang on about how terrible they look so that other people will rise up as one and assure them that, for example, flabby muffin tops hanging over your trouser belt is quite the look these days. But Penny was once named in a list of the world’s 100 most gorgeous examples of the female form, so that theory doesn’t seem to hold water (oh God, don’t mention bloating).
Men are just as depressed when they look in the mirror. Penny does not, as far as I can establish, have the same bald patch as Prince Edward (take it from me, not a glamorous look). Although it seemed impolite to stare at her chest for longer than, say, a quarter of an hour, that was enough to deduce that it’s not so concave that it’s being touted as the setting of the next Indiana Jones movie. The difference is: we just don’t go on about it all the time. Come on, ladies, give it a rest.
Elsewhere, the Daily Star reported that a Kate Middleton lookalike was “being used to launch sexy underwear chain Agent Provocateur’s new bridal range”. The paper said the pictures would give royal fans “a sneak peek of what Kate, 29, might look like on her wedding night”.
Indeed it might. On the other hand, it might not.
Advertisement
