@randomnessish: No shit. Jez Editors: If you want me to read the text of a post, you need to put that picture at the end. Otherwise I will never get to it, because I will have drowned in my own drool.
@BetteD: Haa! Or just make that the main picture for each post so I'll definitely click it--that's one way to up traffic. Better yet, it can be the main picture, the picture at the end, and they can just replace any other pictures throughout the post with THIS PICTURE.
That is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish ALL models looked like this. I feel sorry for most of them - take that Lagerfeld.
Is there such a thing as a plus-sized model for men in "high fashion"? I get the JCP Big & Tall catalog and they definitely have bigger guys - sometimes besweatered football players are on the cover - but I figured it was a niche job, catalog only work. What if a guy is too tall or has too big of a torso/waist (even from, say, muscle)?
@Alessar: i read an interview with Armani where he was doing a show in Houston, and it was hard for him to find models that he wanted because all the men were too tall and muscular. so i'd imagine it's a similar situation.
@roslyn taber: Interesting. I was reading a male model's blog a while back (it's sort of half modeling, half fitness) and he posted some pics and said they were "off season" and he needed to lose 15# from that. The thing is, he was buff and ripped like crazy already and I couldn't see where he could possibly lose it except from muscle mass. So on the one hand the models showing up for the Armani event you mention didn't know they were "too big" but this other guy knew he overshot what was desirable. It makes me infer that there's a range that's considered standard but that there's not the explicit concept of "plus."
"Big, little, pint-size, plus-size — every body is beautiful. And this issue is out to prove it."
Um, if this was true (or people really believed it to be true) the entire modeling industry would cease to exist. Which I think is at the real root of the issue; why would an industry really work to promote an ideal that doesn't benefit them?
Crystal is so much closer to my own personal beauty ideal. I hope these kind of issues or simply "plus-sized" editorials will eventually become normal en frequent. It's a relief to see a little more diversity.
Is anyone else here old enough to remember the ACTUAL plus sized fashion mags that have been on the news stands? I remember a couple, mostly from the early 90's, when I was in college. None of them lasted more than a year, but they DID feature women of every size, shape and color. And they wore clothes! Beautiful clothes, even. One was (unfortunately) named BBW, and there was another one, with a less obnoxious name....
I'm beginning to think I imagined them.
@Chamalla,barren crone: Ya know I would really like a magazine that shows me how the clothes I can actually afford - Banana Republic, Gap, Anthropology, J Crew price range stuff - look on actual women; be they model thin, fashion plus-sized, pear shaped, apple shaped, actual plus-sized, etc.
Do I have an idea here!?
@L'Adelina: That was a pretty decent magazine. I remember buying it not knowing it was for plus sized women and liking it enough that I bought it more than once, even though the clothing sections didnt apply to me.
@L'Adelina: Please do!! I miss those spreads so much. It was the first time I could look at fashion mags for something other than shoes, purses and accessories. My style is still influenced by what I read in those mags.
@Dodai: When I would read Mode back in the day, I felt so skimpy and unsensual compared to those goddesses, not to imply that was their desired effect, it was simply a really well-done appreciation of a full, womanly look. That was a great mag.
If what someone said is true, January is usually the least selling issue I think this opens up the doors for us to really show them this is the direction we want them to START going in. It's not perfect by any stretch but baby steps.
I tend to come down on the side of this being a good thing - despite the very real flaws in the idea that Dodai points out.
2 points though:
1) The more revolutionary stance would just be to start weaving plus-sized models through every issue. That would go a lot farther in proving that every body is beautiful.
2) Still after all this time I cannot believe that woman (ms. renn) is considered plus sized in the fashion world.
@scullymurphy: I agree. I hate that I'm supposed to get excited and feel grateful every time a fashion magazine panders to oh, the entire rest of the world not involved with fashion, by having a plus-sized issue, or featuring a plus-sized model, every once in a blue moon. I'm with her on this.
In addition to the point Dodai made of plus-size models not being representative of the actual size of the average plus-size woman, the proportions of these plus-size models are practically unattainable. If these magazines want so badly to pat themselves on the back about "different" models, perhaps they should consider using someone whose proportions are not perfect. Like, *gasp* a pear-shaped model, which you NEVER see in any magazine.
@Tippi Hedren: Exactly. I don't really see it as progress when the model is bigger but still has a perfect hourglass. I would love to see a pear-shaped model, or even better, someone apple-shaped. I feel like magazines always say "Butts are hot! Hips are sexy!" and I'm just like "Yes, yes, but WHAT ABOUT THE POT BELLIES?!"
@Tippi Hedren @Kitten is an 80s rocker: I know what you're saying but aren't models supposed to have beautiful bodies whether big or small? I'm just trying to work out in my head what constitutes a "model" if everyone deserves representation then don't women with 'plain' faces or bad skin (which a lot of models have because of all the make up they're forced to wear, but obviously its airbrushed out) deserve the same? I'm not saying I don't think there should be more diversification but its a hard balance to find, right? I mean is it just body types/skin color that should be represented, or the whole spectrum of human physicality, its so subjective I think magazines are eventually going to be forced to re-examine their whole strategy, its interesting.
@nothanks: Honestly, I'm one of those people who thinks that runway models should be tiny, because their job is to be human clotheshangers. My problem is when magazines try to pretend that they're not using human clotheshangers, and instead try to act like they're using "average" women. The women they use still have perfect proportions and/or traditionally desirable characteristics, so it's really business as usual. It's the deceit that bothers me, not so much the bodyshape they prefer.
Anyone want to get together and start a magazine that features Jezzies as models? Because although I haven't met a single other Jezebelle, I have a feeling that we probably represent all types of women.
We could write all the articles as well and call it Commenter. Or something a little more catchy!
@Porcelina: @all: Just a reminder: PLEASE don't post measurements/body weight. I realise Dodai's post has "numbers" because they're apposite to the discussion, and I respect the spirit in which you're commenting — Commenter is a mag I would buy! — but let's not veer into personal stats. Because it gets ugly, fast.
@hortense: I completely understand the threadjack comments being deleted.
I'm somewhat confused about the triggering comments and their definition in a post like this one. If there is a potential for triggering comments, is not the post itself triggering? Perhaps there should be some notation in the post itself that it may be triggering if it's a concern to a population of Jezebel readers?
@theysaidwhat: It's more that if one person starts posting numbers, it becomes a number competition and spirals out of control. Dodai's numbers were posted as industry standards; the numbers in the comments typically spiral out into a discussion that goes beyond such things.
@hortense: OK, that makes sense. If I understand correctly, this sort of comment is simultaneously threadjacking and triggering. So two JezeDon'ts in one comment. Gotcha.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
Karl Lagerfield: you are an idiot.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
Um, if this was true (or people really believed it to be true) the entire modeling industry would cease to exist. Which I think is at the real root of the issue; why would an industry really work to promote an ideal that doesn't benefit them?
12/11/09
12/11/09
I'm beginning to think I imagined them.
12/11/09
12/11/09
I'll see if I can pick them up and scan some bits and share them over in groupthink.
12/11/09
Do I have an idea here!?
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
2 points though:
1) The more revolutionary stance would just be to start weaving plus-sized models through every issue. That would go a lot farther in proving that every body is beautiful.
2) Still after all this time I cannot believe that woman (ms. renn) is considered plus sized in the fashion world.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
We could write all the articles as well and call it Commenter. Or something a little more catchy!
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
I'm somewhat confused about the triggering comments and their definition in a post like this one. If there is a potential for triggering comments, is not the post itself triggering? Perhaps there should be some notation in the post itself that it may be triggering if it's a concern to a population of Jezebel readers?
12/11/09
12/11/09