Glamour Honors Plus-Size Models In Its November Issue
Posted by: Catherine Strawn
Filed in:
entertainment
11:50AM, Friday October 2nd 2009
An article in the November issue of Glamour discusses beautiful woman who are larger than standard sample sizes and continues the discussion started by a photo of plus-size model Lizzie Miller from the magazine’s September issue. Along with the article, titled, “Oh. Wow. These Bodies Are Beautiful,” is the above photograph of seven models who are all closer to size 12 than size 2.
The photograph is beautiful and pictures Miller, Crystal Renn, Amy Lemons, Ashley Graham, Kate Dillon, Anansa Sims, and Jennie Runk. The article raises a few good points, i.e., we should stop nitpicking about minor flaws and feel comfortable in our bodies. But why did the models have to be naked?
Nudity in magazines always gets people talking, so it’s likely the women wore their birthday suits as a publicity move. Some might say it was a statement about how a person would have to have confidence in her body to be willing to appear nude in a national magazine. I sort of disagree—when you’ve got radiant skin and windblown hair (thanks to makeup artists, hair stylists, and selective airbrushing), you’ll look good naked, no exceptions. And you don’t have to worry about how your shirt lays on top of your pants or whether your jeans are too tight in the butt when you’re not wearing any clothes.
But perhaps the models didn’t wear clothes not as some statement, but because fashion companies, except for plus-size brands, don’t make clothes that fit them. At least that’s part of Glamour‘s argument about why plus-size models don’t make it into many fashion stories unless special clothes are sewn for them. In the article, the magazine promises this: “Enthusiastic support for any designer who manufactures chic clothes we can photograph on full-bodied models.” Does this mean support of plus-size labels too? Balancing various readers’ sizes and clothing needs is hard when “normal”-sized women shop at certain stores, while plus-size women must shop at others. We’ve had Frisky readers complain about fashion slideshows not including options for women with fuller figures, but it can be hard to cater to all groups unless there are multiple stories tailored to each group (creating a separate-but-maybe-not-equal feeling). Perhaps in the future the fashion world will sort things out, and we’ll get to see these lovely women wearing clothes.
- Tabloid Cheat Sheet: Oprah And MObama Feuding? Katie Holmes’ $15 Million Tell-All Book?
- This Month In The Lady Mags: December’s Not Even Here Yet, And Already A Million Gifts To Buy
- Adam Lambert Dishes On Oral Sex With A Woman
- Celebrities Who Look Way Older Than They Are (Starpulse)
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Billynda
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 11:39 am: [report]
Would you mind posting a picture of yourself naked so we can analyze your attractiveness as well?
Billynda
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 11:47 am: [report]
...or women
bogart4017
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:01 pm: [report]
“Why did the models have to be naked?”
For our viewing pleasure of course. Do your thing ladies!
JenniferRly
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]
Ew, this conversation is so not Frisky. Where are my thought-provoking, intelligent career women (and men)?
PS: Billynda, your 1st comment alone makes you a hottie.
Billynda
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:16 pm: [report]
Thanks Jennifer! I think this is a beautiful picture and represents a lot of real women. It just irks me when males feel the need to comment negatively on a real woman’s body. For many women, comments like that make them feel bad about THEMSELVES instead of just helping them recognize that ‘men’ like that a simply shallow.
bumbler
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:18 pm: [report]
I’m sure Archangel is truly concerned for the health of these women *snerk*
Amelia McDonell-Parry
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:20 pm: [report]
@archangel99 later dude!
MissMissy
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:24 pm: [report]
No one questioned why the “regular” models get naked to hock clothing or merely be in print ads or pictorals. Why bother asking here? These women are gorgeous. If you got it, and we all effin’ do, flaunt the f$*k out of it.
yayiuski
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]
It’s a gorgeous picture.
Who decides what’s the perfect body supposed to look like? We are destroying ourselves by listening to what other people think of what’s perfect. Not everybody has the perfect body. @archangel99 If you have a problem with the picture then get out. I hate people that are shallow.
I Go To 11
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]
@ archangel99: WTH are “midlight eating binges”? Is that when someone scrarfs down a burger while driving through an intersection?
tigerstripe
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:39 pm: [report]
I think it’s a great picture of underrepresented body types, but it’s a little too much nudity. In Lizzie Miller’s original picture that everyone loved, she just looked kind of content by herself, but with all these women all over each other, it’s bordering on too sexual.
retro chic
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:42 pm: [report]
@I Go To 11: //WTH are “midlight eating binges”? Is that when someone scrarfs down a burger while driving through an intersection?//
I think he’s referring to his own rendezvous with little lightbulb in the refrigerator.
I Go To 11
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]
@ retro chic: Touche’.
bumbler
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]
@retro Well we know he’s not getting loving from anyone else.
What I like is the realistic representation of what larger boobs looks like. No surprise surprise, they don’t stand at attention like poorly done fakes.
remembercedricdiggory
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:48 pm: [report]
@archangel99; I honestly can’t tell which woman you’re talking about, as none of these women look unhealthy. Where’s the gut?
bumbler
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:51 pm: [report]
Someone told me that’s Beverly Johnson’s granddaughter. Anyone know if that’s true? I think the facial features do look similar.
retro chic
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:59 pm: [report]
I’m sure the bulb isn’t feeling it either.
—-
Yeah, these women look better than normal to me, but natural. Voluptuous and healthy – but still not reflective of most people. But it’s a start. A woman should be marketed to for confidence at any size, if retailers are smart.
NomChompsky
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]
What I don’t understand is why people assume runway models are supposed to represent some sort of paragon of physical beauty. Modeling isn’t primarily about sexual attractiveness, and the fact that the two have somehow been seen to be mutually inclusive is at the heart of the problem, I think.
Although I DO like that it’s a profession where being able to walk and chew gum at the same time somehow makes you overqualified.
brandyalexander
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]
Nicely said, Chompsky. The other thing I think that is funny about modeling is that it seems like its sometimes a benefit to have a quirky, or even ugly, feature. Take Georgia Jagger’s teeth. In the case of these women, they all have gorgeous skin and perfect makeup and hair. Their quirk is their weight, strange as it may be. Although they are actually quite average weights, people like the troll on this thread find them to be unattractive because of it.
What if Lizzie had Georgia’s teeth? What then?
I may be thinking out loud here, but I think its a mistake for women to try to emulate or even think its reasonable to emulate fashion models.
I am starting to hate fashion more and more… I like looking nice, I like feeling colorful and unique and sexy. I do not however, enjoy the following things about fashion:
1. Worship of the anorexic body: And though Glamour is defying this trend, I sort of doubt that it will have any real or lasting impact.
2. Models are all ridiculously young, often come from very poor families, and, as written about on this very site, often face sexual harassment and even rape during their work.
3. The clothes have prices that few but the most extremely wealthy can afford.
4. Glamorizing cruelty to animals by peddling fur and leather clothing.
5. Encouraging rampant consumption of manufactured beauty and art dictated from on high when we exist in a world already drowning in junk and starving for empathy, action, nourishment and real beauty.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
NomChompsky
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]
I may be thinking out loud here, but I think its a mistake for women to try to emulate or even think its reasonable to emulate fashion models.
Pretty much. Just so this is abundantly clear: models aren’t models because men want to have sex with them. Models are models because they have an engaging aesthetic and they can show off clothes well. I’ve been backstage at a bunch of fashion shows, and trust me, it’s not some sort of sexual wonderland.
1. Worship of the anorexic body: And though Glamour is defying this trend, I sort of doubt that it will have any real or lasting impact.
Really, you just want somebody that’s as close to a walking coathanger as possible, unless they’re doing underwear modeling or something.
Coathangers aren’t sexy.
3. The clothes have prices that few but the most extremely wealthy can afford.
I’m not a huge fan of overpriced clothing. If something is quality and costs more to make, that’s one thing. If something is priced just so that people with more money than fashion sense can feel superior, I’m not impressed.
5. Encouraging rampant consumption of manufactured beauty and art dictated from on high when we exist in a world already drowning in junk and starving for empathy, action, nourishment and real beauty.
Art by nature is manufactured (not in the same literal sense as clothes, of course, but w/e). People who truly care about the clothes they make and want to show them off should be considered artists in the same
vainvein as painters or sculptors. Fashion shows and editorials are sort of like galleries.brandyalexander
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]
Thanks, Chompsky. I think I wrote all of that in a bit of a hurry, it could have been more eloquent, but I think you see where I am going with it. I can see some fashion as art, and I do realize that all art is manufactured. I think the difference is when people blindly follow labels instead of looking for true beauty. Beauty can just as easily come from a vintage coat from the sixties, or a hand sewn shirt or scarf. That, to me, is more beautiful because it is more unique and more intimate. Similarly, I am more likely to find beauty in a person with a few physical quirks than in some pretty clothes hanger.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 02:49 pm: [report]
Fashion didn’t ALWAYS worship the anorexic body. We can thank mid-90s Kate Moss-esque heroin chic for that. In the mid-80s to early 90s it was all about glorifying tall goddesses with perfect faces, and perfect, athletic bodies - the Cindy Crawfords, the Linda Evangelistas, the Naomi Campbell. That was back when they still put models on magazine covers instead of celebrities. Because models were actually beautiful.
mmkw
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 02:50 pm: [report]
Does anybody else get excited when Amelia throws the smack down on trolls? I gave an audible “WOOT!” when I saw her message.
Sawdustlights
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 03:44 pm: [report]
I would just like to say - I don’t see an unattractive woman in that bunch up there. Going along with Canadiancutie’s comment, I really wish that fashion would drop it’s 80s and 90s fed ideas about putting unhealthy-thin models or celebrities on the covers of magazines. It’s getting old. What happened to vibrance and personality instead of an airbrushed cover?
But I have to admit, I have friends who are both plus-size, and friends that I know that are actually just naturally thin girls. I consider them all beautiful. I would really like to see variety in and on magazines - thin women, average women, and plus-size women. Every type of woman. Women who take care of their bodies and love themselves. It would be really nice.
(Oh, and seriously, I don’t know who that first comment is even referring too, HOW IS THERE AN UNATTRACTIVE WOMAN IN THIS BUNCH? I swear I’d date any one of these ladies).
www.thesexyphoenix.com
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]
bravo the real world is starting to shine on in ... GOD FOR YOU GLAMOUR…
www.thesexyphoenix.com
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 03:50 pm: [report]
I have many plus size linegire, costumes and lingerie @ http://www.thesexyphoenix.com
bethlynn00
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 04:00 pm: [report]
Looking forward to my new Glamour to come in the mail…
Yeah I think a picture of them clothes would be lovely, just because I love Glamour fashion spreads. And I understand that these are suppose to be “plus-size” models, but these are more like size 12-14 women, which there are some limitations compared to what you generally see on the runway, but not enough that most stores don;t have clothing in that size, now if they get REAL plus-size models, like in the size 18+, better yet size 22+ and say there were not many options for them, then I’ll go for that.
MondimNebel
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 05:01 pm: [report]
Anyone who takes time to think about what reality is versus the usual model in a magazine should notice that there’s a difference. You shouldn’t look to them as what you want to look like physically because you DON’T.
However, they’re a hell of a lot better to look at (you know, after Photoshop makes them not look anorexic) than those women pictured above. Sure, many of those models have an eating disorder, but Photoshop does wonders and they just come out looking slender and not-bony. But I look at the women up there and think they don’t exercise enough, they eat too much, etc. At least the usual models don’t LOOK anorexic.
If you’re concerned about self-esteem problems, it’s not caused by looking at pictures or the media. It comes from you and how you choose to see yourself and the world.
DancingGeek
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 08:17 pm: [report]
I think they’re all beautiful and look healthy and confident. I don’t think the center model has a gut at all, in fact I think her stomach looks pretty firm. You know we do have internal organs in there, a concave stomach is unnatural.
honeylove
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 11:47 pm: [report]
Please go get the November issue of Glamour magazine! There is a beautiful picture of 7 plus size models nude. Legendary super model Beverly Johnson’s daughter Anansa Sims is featured in the picture. She is a size 12-14 and gorgeous! Her mother blazed trails in the 70’s as the first African American on the cover of Vogue and now her daughter is blazing a new trail representing normal size women! Bravo!!
develange
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 04:11 pm: [report]
if someone thinks any of those stomachs are guts, then they have not seen many naked women in real life.
The women still look a little too retouched, though.
Lavanderism
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 08:25 am: [report]
I’ve read the comments so far and have thoughts reeling in my head.
First, I give kudos to glamour for trying. Even though these women are actually your average (that is the wrong word. seriously, there’s nothing average about them) sized women, to the fashion word where everyone is supposed to be a size 2 or less, these women are considered plus, and Glamour really feels like they’re bucking the trend.
I also agree with the reasons why they’re naked. I’ve actually seen that quite often…when a magazine decides to show a beautiful “plus-size” model, she’s usually in the nude. At first glance, you would think it’s to show confidence, and to support that this is what a healthy normal body can look like too. However, I have yet to see plus size models just in the magazine, in a fashion piece. I agree it may be because designers still aren’t making super awesome clothes for these women. So currently, they’re still just showcased.
I also agree with a comment that stated magazines should show off all bodies. They really should. I think it’s it equally mean to say a curvy girl should go excercise as it is to talk about someone who’s naturally thin (and I know quite a bit of naturally twiggy women) and tell them to “eat a sandwich”. That’s not nice. And I hate sandwiches.
Lavanderism
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 08:32 am: [report]
Man… I said “I also agree” twice.
Another “wish I could edit” frisky moment.
angel001717
wrote on October 10 2009 @ 01:26 am: [report]
perhaps they are naked just because they are sexy women. its not uncommon for “straight size” models to do tasteful nude shoots, why not normal-sized women?