The wobbly bits that shook the world: The joyous support created by one model's pictu

lala stone

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1210814/The-wobbly-bits-shook-world-The-joyous-support-created-models-picture-flabby-tummy-all.html

I think this maybe the first unairbrused pic of a curvy girl! Is all this fuss justified?! Cheered me up anyway!

minidazzler

A picture of a Normal woman. Is there a reason that the Daily Mail are running it as some sort of fantastic story?

pikachucheeks

I think the fuss is justified - it's a step in the right direction!

She looks great and she looks happy. I'm delighted to see something that isn't photoshopped to oblivion finally appearing in the papers!

petes

minidazzler wrote: »

Is there a reason that the Daily Mail are running it as some sort of fantastic story?

Yes. It's the Daily Mail.

lala stone

minidazzler wrote: »

A picture of a Normal woman. Is there a reason that the Daily Mail are running it as some sort of fantastic story?

ha! well I suppose when every freaking picture of women is airbrished, enhanced, nipped, tucked etc it is nice to see that ppl in magazines have stomachs! lol!

but ya a step in the right direction if nothing else!!

Jessibelle

If it's the start of things to come it can only be a good thing, if however, it's a cheap publicity stunt...
gosh I've become very cynical haven't I

lala stone

Jessibelle wrote: »

If it's the start of things to come it can only be a good thing, if however, it's a cheap publicity stunt...
gosh I've become very cynical haven't I

For glamour magazine?!

Jessibelle

It's just that I feel this type of thing has been done before with little or no effect. Like the Body Shop 'Barbie' campaign, the 'Dove Campaign for Real Beauty' or the occaisional article you'll see in a magazine were they've used 'real' models or readers as models. It causes a positive reaction for awhile, then quietly we're slipped back to the standard airbrushed and photoshopped image. I feel it would be a far more benifical thing if, for example, Glamour said that this was the type of model it would use from now on in, or that it would run for 6 months without airbrushing it's models. Something over a signifigant period rather than a once off.

pikachucheeks

They're discussing this on Midday on TV3 right now, for anyone who wants to tune in and watch.

winking weber

Theres no way that girl is 12.5 stone is there? I'm 9 stone and I look fatter than that.

It is a lovely photo though.

pikachucheeks

winking weber wrote: »

Theres no way that girl is 12.5 stone is there? I'm 9 stone and I look fatter than that.

It is a lovely photo though.

I thought the same! She doesn't look like she weighs that much at all!

anniehoo

Even if it is a publicity stunt i think its great. A belly and stretch marks....hurray i think its brilliant. Finally a non perfect pic of a woman most of us can relate to.

winking weber

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I thought the same! She doesn't look like she weighs that much at all!

I'd give her 10.5 stone max.

She looks great all the same. Its much more attractive to my eyes than the airbrushed stuff which is almost cartoonish.

pikachucheeks

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I thought the same! She doesn't look like she weighs that much at all!

She is 5ft 11 though....that isn't even overweight for someone that height.
I well believe her.

LadyMayBelle

Finally, a natural normal picture. Altho there is no way she is 12.5stone, that is nuts!

fatmammycat

She's 5'11 and 180 pounds, which put her as a plus sized model. Glamour are now talking about using a whole slew of plus sized models. But I still think it's all a bit gimmiky. Great, she's a model, now how about putting her in some clothes.

banshee_bones

winking weber wrote: »

Theres no way that girl is 12.5 stone is there? I'm 9 stone and I look fatter than that.

It is a lovely photo though.

winking weber wrote: »

I'd give her 10.5 stone max.

She looks great all the same. Its much more attractive to my eyes than the airbrushed stuff which is almost cartoonish.

Mad isnt it because she doesnt look it, think the article said she was 5 11" in height though so maybe its just that shes tall.

Fair play all the same though..

winking weber

I still dont believe it. Absolutely no way she's that weight, I have several friends that height. And calling her 'plus-size' is a bit off too. Shes normal size. Unless the photograph is severely misleading.

Why would they lie about it though?

fatmammycat

Plus size is how she is referred to in her chosen industry- it's how she referred to herself in an interview. And 180 pounds at 5 11 is pretty heavy in my opinion.

winking weber

Well why is there nothing in between size zero and 'plus-size'.

Where are all the healthy size 10 models?

This is just annoying me now.

humanji

Anybody else scroll down to the Chanel ad they show in the middle of the article to demonstrate a normal ad? This pretty much sums up the campaign, to be honest. They show pictures that the average woman can relate to and once you have good publicity, go back to the skinny models.

Models and movie stars are used by marketing people to give the average Joe somethign to aim for. It's pointing them in the direction of endless possibilities, makign them feel that they too could be one of the beautiful people. But this kind of publicity stunt is really just shallow and insulting. They don't want you to be ok with yourself. Then you wouldnt' need their products. They want you to think that people like you use their products in order to become something better.

Or maybe I'm just cynical and jaded.

Malari

winking weber wrote: »

I still dont believe it. Absolutely no way she's that weight, I have several friends that height. And calling her 'plus-size' is a bit off too. Shes normal size. Unless the photograph is severely misleading.

Why would they lie about it though?

Her upper body looks normal enough, apart from the belly, but her thighs are huge, and with her height she probably is the weight they claim.

Plus-size for a model, anyway.

fatmammycat

Dunno, probably the underwear models are more 'average' sized, not the Victoria Secrets crowd, but you know, for Playtex and so on. They usually look curvy and pretty much around the 10 mark. Actually I'm not much of an expert on models, or fashion for that matter. I just think the industry likes to hop on extremes, either rail thin or Ditto like. This girl is very pretty, I'd still like to see her in clothing, not sitting in a piece of string, trying to cover her boobs.

winking weber

Ok I've done some googling. Shes a 12-14. Plus size is technically a 16+.

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

And 180 pounds at 5 11 is pretty heavy in my opinion.

I'm a 180 @ 5ft 8. And I'm not preety heavy.
I'd be skelator at 147 like winky suggests, nevermind someone as tall as herself.

fatmammycat

American or English though? 12-14 american is larger than our 12 to 14.

Fajitas!

winking weber wrote: »

I still dont believe it. Absolutely no way she's that weight, I have several friends that height. And calling her 'plus-size' is a bit off too. Shes normal size. Unless the photograph is severely misleading.

Why would they lie about it though?

'Plus size' dosn't mean fat, overweight, etc, in modeling - It can mean any sort of + from the 'normal'* - Broader shoulders, broader waist, bustier models, and so on. It's not a derogatory term in the slightest (As much as it might across that way).

Tbh, as much as it's a great step, it will, as mentioned Jessibell, slip into obscurity, along with Dove's campaigns, etc. Also, there's plenty of 'normal' models out there, but it's easier for the nay-sayers to pick up on the size-zero's - The majority of models are incredibly healthy.

Why would they lie about it though?

Publicity

Edit: *normal dosn't mean size zero.

fatmammycat

Moonbaby wrote: »

I'm a 180 @ 5ft 8. And I'm not preety heavy.
I'd be skelator at 147 like winky suggests, nevermind someone as tall as herself.

Well I'm 5 10 and she out weighs me by 30 pounds, and I am no skinny minny. So like I say in MY opinion she's heavy. Not fat, not unhealthy, not unattractive, not unsexy, just heavy.

Novella

I think she looks amazing, I mean she's really pretty and it's a nice change from what you normally see in magazines and such. Honestly though, if I was that model, I would be pissed off at the amount of attention I was getting just for having a wee bit of a tummy.

It's a good change and of course, it'd be great to see more models who are not stick thin around the place but creating a huge amount of media attention about her lil belly is almost as bad as the size 0 phenomenon, in my opinion anyway. It still sends out a message to women, like "Ooooh look, a belly", as if it's something to be ashamed of.

Pighead

Pighead is seeing a lot of anger towards the magazines who airbrush their models but surely that's a tad hypocritical seeing as women have a tendency to airbrush themselves.
Most women daren't leave the house without make up when going on a night out (or even down to the shops in some cases!) They wear clothes which hide all the bumps and lumps they don't want people to see. They wear bras which make their boobs seem better than they actually are etc etc etc.

If you are all so anti-airbrushing how come you don't proudly show off your own imperfections to the world? Just wondering like.

fatmammycat

Pighead wrote: »

Pighead is seeing a lot of anger towards the magazines who airbrush their models but surely that's a tad hypocritical seeing as women have a tendency to airbrush themselves.
Most women daren't leave the house without make up when going on a night out (or even down to the shops in some cases!) They wear clothes which hide all the bumps and lumps they don't want people to see. They wear bras which make their boobs seem better than they actually are etc etc etc.

If you are all so anti-airbrushing how come you don't proudly show off your own imperfections to the world? Just wondering like.

Pigheads need to learn the difference between making the best of what you have compared to creating an unrealistic humanoid of perfection.

winking weber

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, as much as it's a great step, it will, as mentioned Jessibell, slip into obscurity, along with Dove's campaigns, etc. Also, there's plenty of 'normal' models out there, but it's easier for the nay-sayers to pick up on the size-zero's - The majority of models are incredibly healthy.



Edit: *normal dosn't mean size zero.

I didnt mean to imply that most models werent healthy. And have absolutely nothing against very thin models.

It would just be nice to see more regular women in magazines who carry a bit of body fat like most people. Neither size zero nor plus size... something in between.

fatmammycat

winking weber wrote: »

I didnt mean to imply that most models werent healthy. And have absolutely nothing against very thin models.

It would just be nice to see more regular women in magazines who carry a bit of body fat like most people. Neither size zero nor plus size... something in between.

Agreed.

Pighead

fatmammycat wrote: »

Pighead need to learn the difference between making the best of what you have to creating an unrealistic humanoid of perfection.

Pighead doesn't see too much difference.

Magazine: Touching up picture to make it look better to the viewing audience.

Woman: Touching up herself (easy at the back!) to make herself look better to the viewing audience.

If a magazine editor touches up a breast to make fuller and more alluring is it taht much different than a woman putting on a wonderbra? Interesting question, Pighead. Very nicely put buddy.

Fajitas!

winking weber wrote: »

I didnt mean to imply that most models werent healthy. And have absolutely nothing against very thin models.

It would just be nice to see more regular women in magazines who carry a bit of body fat like most people. Neither size zero nor plus size... something in between.

Nor did I mean to imply that you meant to imply most models weren't healthy

I guess what I'm trying to say is a lot of models would fit in to the space between size zero and plus, while staying quite healthy. There's a lot of immediate connotations when someone mentions the word 'model', that give the impression of a fully visible rib cage and shoulder sockets you could keep your purse in which are (imo+e) untrue

Anyways, I better get outta here

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

Well I'm 5 10 and she out weighs me by 30 pounds, and I am no skinny minny. So like I say in MY opinion she's heavy. Not fat, not unhealthy, not unattractive, not unsexy, just heavy.

Why is being "heavy" even pass commentable then? If it is not fat or unhealthy?

I think this picking apart of tiny nugget of information, is kinda wrecking the spirit of the thing.

Regardless of their weight.
It is great to see anyone grace a magazine, without being photoshopped within an inch of their life.

lala stone

Ya she is 5 ft 11 that is really tall and even at 12.5 stone she has a healthy BMI..

I cant imagine they would say she was 12.5 if she wasnt???

what did they say on tv3?!

lala stone

Moonbaby wrote: »

Regardless of their weight.
It is great to see anyone grace a magazine, without being photoshopped within an inch of their life.

++1

fatmammycat

Big difference between a real actual woman and a 2d image, Pighead. If a woman puts her best foot forward in the world it will be for more than just titillation.

fatmammycat

Moonbaby wrote: »

Why is being "heavy" even pass commentable then? If it is not fat or unhealthy?

I think this picking apart of tiny nugget of information, is kinda wrecking the spirit of the thing.

Regardless of their weight.
It is great to see anyone grace a magazine, without being photoshopped within an inch of their life.

Why is anything in life pass commentable? I am not taking anything from her beauty or anything else. She is heavy in my opinion. That's all.

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

Why is anything in life pass commentable? I am not taking anything from her beauty or anything else.

~cynical eyebrow raise~

lala stone

fatmammycat wrote: »

Big difference between a real actual woman and a 2d image, Pighead. If a woman puts her best foot forward in the world it will be for more than just titillation.

ya u can enhance etc a picture far MORE than any padded bra!

the pic is great because she is neither overweight or obese,just a healthy normal weight.. one which we are unaccustomed to viewing...

Fajitas!

Moonbaby wrote: »

Regardless of their weight.
It is great to see anyone grace a magazine, without being photoshopped within an inch of their life.

Without being "ooooh look at me!!" I've never tucked in a belly, lengthened a leg, put anyones eyes through a magnifying glass or thrown in a dose of digital botox to any of my shoots, if skin needs retouching I'll do that, but tbh, I really don't see anything wrong with that. And that's been for a good few publications...

If it's film I'm using, rather than digital, I'll only retouch a major blemish, and there's quite a few other photographers doing the same.

fatmammycat

Moonbaby wrote: »

~cynical eyebrow raise~

* shrugs*

Pighead

Moonbaby wrote: »

~cynical eyebrow raise~

*airbrushes eyebrow to make it arched and more cynical*

panda100

Do you know what else is nice about that picture, is that even though she's naked there is absolutely nothing sexual about this picture which is refreshing as womens naked bodies in the media are usually highly sexualised.
Its great to see a naked women in a natural state rather than those completely OTT, fake Playboy and Page 3 poses we're so used of seeing.

Its a lovely,natural picture and she has a wonderful body.

shellyboo

winking weber wrote: »

Ok I've done some googling. Shes a 12-14. Plus size is technically a 16+.

Size 16 is the maximum size you can be to be employed as a plus-size model.

She is not plus-size. She works as a plus-size model. Difference!

G86

This is really interesting because I've actually just completed a thesis on the mediated female body ideal and it's effects on teens; and I do think that alot of female media images are too slim and too unobtainable for the average female.

As for this picture though, I'm not sure about all the hype about it, I don't think it's going to last. If I'm honest, she's a good looking girl, but I wouldn't exactly aspire to have her figure. Yes, size 0 models are far too thin and I'd never want to look like that, but I do think a size 10-12 model would have looked better in that shoot. I'm 5'10' and my weight's normally between 72 - 75kg, and although I'm happier when I'm a bit lighter I'm content enough; but then again I wouldn't want a picture of me half naked publicised unless I was completely in shape - and that means no belly!

In my opinion it's not an attractive picture, and either is a skeletal photo of Kiera Knightly - you need a happy medium. I think Jessica Biel would be a good example of a fit and healthy female body.

winking weber

Fajitas! wrote: »

Nor did I mean to imply that you meant to imply most models weren't healthy

I guess what I'm trying to say is a lot of models would fit in to the space between size zero and plus, while staying quite healthy. There's a lot of immediate connotations when someone mentions the word 'model', that give the impression of a fully visible rib cage and shoulder sockets you could keep your purse in which are (imo+e) untrue

Anyways, I better get outta here

Ah dont. Its interesting to get a photographers perspective on it.

metaoblivia

A few weeks ago, they interviewed the model on the Today Show, and she said when she saw the photo, she wasn't very pleased with it and was surprised they published it. She got what their aim was, but you could tell she was still kind of embarrassed.

I'm agree with some others on here - we see plus sized models and models that are very thin. But where are the girls who fall somewhere in between? I've always wondered that about modeling. There's a set of very attractive, healthy women who are too big to be normal model, but too small to be a plus sized model. I guess just as plus sized models aren't actually plus sized but meant to appeal to plus sized women, the "normal" models are meant to appeal to the size 8-10s, but I'd like to see some variety other than bone thin or plus sized.

panda100

G86 wrote: »

In my opinion it's not an attractive picture, and either is a skeletal photo of Kiera Knightly - you need a happy medium. I think Jessica Biel would be a good example of a fit and healthy female body.

I don't think its a 'happy medium' we need but a celebration of all womens figures whether they are skinny like Kiera Knightly or have a bit of fat on their thighs and belly. Women come in all shapes and sizes and this is what should be promoted not some sort of medium for all women to aspire to.

Who is to say what a healthy womens body looks like. How is Jessica Biel anymore healthier than Kiera Knightly? They just have completely different body shapes.

As someone who is 6'1,healthy and has been a lanky,skinny beanpole for most of her life I hate this current trend that to be a 'real' women you have to be all curvy with tits and an ass. Us beanpoles are real women too!