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.