Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Another "curvaceous" model

Yesterday's blog showed a couple of beautiful "curvaceous" models.   I thought you'd like to see another.  For the more often we see models with natural flesh and curves, the less we'll be told and reminded that anything other than skeletal frames are not really acceptable.   I think the argument that a model must be a size zero no longer holds any substance.  And substance is what it's about, really.

I maintain that women's magazines, world wide, are supposedly written with "women as their focus".   That means, to my way of thinking, that these magazines should include women of all ages, including growing older years, women of different shapes and sizes, all as a matter of course.   Not just in occasional advertisements, and certainly not in occasional segments or supplements being shown as women who are treated as an after-thought.  Why is it that these magazines highlight "everything" for and about women who are young and extremely thin (not necessarily naturally thin) and yet ignore the women who are like you and me.  Rounder women;  taller women;  bigger women;  older women;  women with experience in many life issues.  We're all customers,  we're real flesh and blood.   We're the woman next door, women in our family and women you see down the street, every day, in every town and city in the world.   Yet we're looked upon and spoken about as though we're either invisible or not deserving of respect.   We're expected to fit into "their" ideals, when quite honestly "THEY" haven't a clue about what the word ideal means.  They want us to do as they say, and be like they say we should be like, and look as they say we should look like.  Well, it doesn't work that way.  

Life is about diversity, and it's about time that the magazines of this world, including their editors and features and beauty editors, took note.


  1. I appreciate Junonia catalogs, because they use actually plus size models. The picture above is good in that she's more normal than some skinny model.

    Now, if only saggy boobs would come into fashion! (I'm so into comfort.)

  2. I agree with you 100%! I like to add that another major change we need is for more boutiques to carry plus sizes in addition to regular sizes. Why is it necessary for a store to sell one or the other? There are just a few retailers that sell both. I think, to use your term, 'curvaceous' women need to mention this problem whenever they go into a store that doesn't carry plus-size clothing.

  3. I agree with you Janet, about Junonia. From what I can see though, they don't sell to Australia - I can't even get a catalogue from them these days! But that doesn't mean that they don't have terrific garments, and most certaily their models are "real size".

    You make me smile, Janet - yep, saggy boobs - perhaps we could start a new trend?

    Dorez: This situation of separating plus sizes from the "typical" range of sizes has been a "pet peeve" of mine for years now. The funny thing is that back in the 1950s, stores did stock all sizes. It was only with the advent of "boutiques" that the separation really began - almost as though the plus size women themselves were relegated to being "too different" to be included with others. I've even tackled retail buyers, but their argument is that hands are tied because of executive decisions within their stores. I think we need more women executives but even then I've found that women can be women's worst enemy when it comes to complete acceptance.