Glamour ran an image of a nude plus-sized model in September. The mag got big ups from its readership. The natural conclusion? A picture of a whole bunch of naked, curvy women for the November issue. This sneak preview photo was just released. ----->
The dolla dolla billz seem to be voting for more realistic images of women. The streets (and the news editor position at the Alibi) are stocked with full figures. It’s always been curious to me that what we look like and what we want to look like are so disparate. I assumed that the mags kept promoting the stick-with-tits template because that’s what people wanted to see. Or, at least, that’s what people were trained to want to see. Perhaps that’s changing, and the glossies are finally taking notice.
But maybe this Glamour campaign is just a fluke, another temporary publicity stunt. You see these things every so often. Remember what a big deal it was when Dove opted to use some realistic women in its ads in 2005? Everyone patted one another on the back for making progress. Then, poof, nothing.
I don’t think we’ll have passed any significant mile markers until it’s no big deal to spotlight women who aren’t fasting and doing drugs to keep the curves and muscles away.
What do you think about naked curves? Great! I’m an equal nudity enjoyer! 7 (39%) I actually prefer a little meat on the bones. 10 (56%) No way. They’re unhealthy, and we shouldn’t promote them in an obese nation. 1 (6%) I don’t mind that these women are full-figured, but I don’t want to look at it. 0 (0%) Why does everyone have to be naked or nearly naked in magazines anyway? 0 (0%) (Login to vote.)
You must be logged in to vote.
curvy is sexy. scrawny, nah. (I do understand that sometimes scrawny chicks can't help their scrawniness though).
I find both men and women with a good amount of flesh more appealing. But within reason, morbidly obese is not healthy or sexy. Just your average well fed person.
how ridiculous it is that there is no visible cellulite in that original September photo. You know that there's gonna be some ripples in the sitting-compressed butt/thigh area. Puh-leaze.
Oh well. Baby steps, I guess.
P.S. I want 'em real thick and juicy, so find that juicy double...
They are just real women!
These women look pretty normal (not 'plus size' whatever that means). If they are plus size I'm plus size. Probably range from size 0-6.
Ideally, we should see 14 boobs in that picture, but I don't even see half that. Don't try to tell me this is just a statistical anomaly.
Coincidentally, I was just admiring photos of her over a frito pie.
She's pretty much the perfect woman.
Coincidentally, I was just admiring photos of her over a frito pie.
She's pretty much the perfect woman.
i prefer women to be breathing and have AT LEAST half a brain .
I was referring to her body, doooood. This blog is about body types.
I don't think they're "plus sized"...maybe by Hollywood and the fashion industry's standards, but they look good to me!
twistdmojo, nachodaddy, kristin ... i guess the fact that they're showing a few fat rolls, and some non-bony legs, is supposed to make them "plus-sized".
and i could never really figure out women's clothing sizes anyhow ... granted, men's clothing sizes sometimes lie (see "Are Your Pants Are Lying to You? The Truth About Vanity-Sizing
", linked to in the daily word sometime back, and archived at [link] )
but at least, barring companies lying to you about the size, it actually represents an actual measurement. do the funny "low numbers" in women's clothing reflect our strange cultural thing about women and being skinny?
