Emma John­son

Warwickshire Telegraph - - STYLE&BEAUTY -

WITH my pointy nose and chin “cute” is not an at­tribute I ex­pect to have ap­plied to me. Not that I am both­ered. Meerkats are cute, ba­bies are cute...

But, it seems be­ing cute is a big deal. Big enough a deal for some­one to con­duct a sci­en­tific study to dis­cover what it is that makes a per­son so. Maybe there were too many sci­en­tists work­ing on a cure for cancer that day (... oh, it was to mark the launch of a new range of Hall­mark greet­ing cards).

Prof David Per­rett of St An­drews Univer­sity asked 90 adults to an­a­lyse and rate the cute­ness of 200 in­fant faces and from this iden­ti­fied the 20 fea­tures which con­sis­tently came up.

They in­cluded large eyes, but­ton nose, rosy com­plex­ion, small chin and chubby cheeks. Quelle sur­prise.

While chubby cheeks may be cute in child­hood, it is the sculpted cheek­bones of An­gelina Jolie most of us long for as adult fe­males.

And yet a con­sid­er­ably more se­ri­ous study than the cute­ness one claimed this week that teenage girls in the UK are the fat­test in Europe with al­most a third of Bri­tish girls un­der 20 over­weight or obese.

I would like to say I am shocked at these sta­tis­tics but I’m not.

Shop fit­ting rooms on Satur­day af­ter­noons are not short of teenage girls with muf­fin tops spilling out over their too-tight jeans.

I don’t mean to come over all hor­ri­bly sizeist and judge­men­tal here and I know it is not like me to get too se­ri­ous, but this is a ter­ri­fy­ing trend which needs ad­dress­ing.

Stay­ing within healthy weight pa­ram­e­ters is not just about look­ing good, it is gen­uinely a mat­ter of life and death given the health risks as­so­ci­ated with be­ing over­weight.

While we worry about our young women fall­ing prey to eat­ing dis­or­ders like anorexia and bu­limia it seems some could in­stead be eat­ing their way into early graves.

Iron­i­cally, in the me­dia, the pres­sure to be thin has never been more in­tense. We are awash with skinny celebs and a new diet seems to come out ev­ery week.

And yet ac­cord­ing to Bri­tish Heart Foun­da­tion sta­tis­tics around 85% of 13-year-old girls in the UK do not do the rec­om­mended one hour of phys­i­cal ac­tiv­ity a day. I have never had a weight prob­lem. But I am not nat­u­rally skinny. I work at stay­ing slim and have done ever since my mum took me to bal­let classes, gym classes and mar­tial arts classes – all long be­fore I en­tered my own teenage years. Harsh as it is to say, maybe young girls these days need to worry less about so­cial me­dia and tak­ing “self­ies” on their smart­phones and more about tak­ing up a skip­ping rope or a ten­nis racket

SO the “Kimye” wed­ding ex­trav­a­ganza is all over bar the glossy mag­a­zine deal for the pho­tos.

There were din­ners and di­a­monds, his and hers match­ing “just mar­ried” jack­ets and so many top de­sign­ers at the do it was like fash­ion week went to Florence.

And, thanks to the of­fi­cial wed­ding photo, see be­low, we now know that Kim’s dress was a lacy Givenchy Cou­ture af­fair by Ric­cardo Tisci. Kanye West and baby North were also in Givenchy.

Whether we do get to see any­thing other than the in­sanely well-shot in­sta­gram booth pics al­ready posted on­line and the two of­fi­cial wed­ding shots re­mains to be seen but it has been made clear that TV cam­eras for Kim’s re­al­ity show were not at the wed­ding it­self.

Shame be­cause a “Kim Kar­dashian” Goes West wed­ding spe­cial would have been TV gold.

Right: Top £16, shorts £15, bag £13 all F&F at Tesco

Be­low: Left – dress £12, bag £4, head­band £3, sun­glasses £3, neck­lace £1.50, rings from £3. Right – top £14, shorts £10, bum­bag £4, sun­glasses £3, ring £2, all at Pri­mark

Right: Tan­garine cro­chet dress, £45, limited edi­tion flower hair band, £8 all asos.com

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.