Curvy Models in Italian Vogue

Exuberant

Don't know if anyone has already posted the link for the newest edition of Italian Vogue yet? Vogue takes on curves!

http://www.vogue.it/magazine/cover-story/2011/06/belle-vere

I think these photos are amazing! The women look so great. It's a very sexy shoot! It's weird though how this is seen as such progression...it feels like it should be a normal thing, a regular occurrence. It's not like these women are any way big or "fat" at all, they are just curvy, they have voluptuous bodies, so when I really think about it I just think it's weird how much people are celebrating it. But in saying that like I do adore the shoot, I just wish there was more like this all the time. Well hopefully this will be the start of something new


Mod edit: Please note some pictures could be considered NSFW!

fghijkl

Exuberant wrote: »

Don't know if anyone has already posted the link for the newest edition of Italian Vogue yet? Vogue takes on curves!

http://www.vogue.it/magazine/cover-story/2011/06/belle-vere

I think these photos are amazing! The women look so great. It's a very sexy shoot! It's weird though how this is seen as such progression...it feels like it should be a normal thing, a regular occurrence. It's not like these women are any way big or "fat" at all, they are just curvy, they have voluptuous bodies, so when I really think about it I just think it's weird how much people are celebrating it. But in saying that like I do adore the shoot, I just wish there was more like this all the time. Well hopefully this will be the start of something new

Prob gonna get slated for this but....here goes...
Personally they look overweight to me (not saying i'm perfect, but if i saw a woman of some of their sizes walking down the street i'd consider her "heavy" tbh).

IMHO it's just swapping one unhealthy ideal to aspire to with another, hate the way this "curvy" crap is used to excuse being overweight.
It's just as bad to aspire to have their figures as their regular underweight models. Both are unhealthy. Anyone overweigh/underweight/normal weight photographed under the right lights, with lashings of photoshop will look 'amazing'.

Don't see it as progression at all myself. Why does it have to be one extreme or the other, don't see why they can't just use women of normal weight and with a healthy BMI, none of this 'curvy' or 'rake thin' nonsense. Isn't anyone over a 32 inch waist (as in belly button waist) at an increased risk for health problems, why is that something to be celebrated or aspired to? (Not being fattist or anything, being underweight shouldn't be something to aspire to either). Why is it always "curvy" verses "skinny"? why can't the aspiration be a healthy "normal" weight?

/rant

phasers

Well imo if underweight models are acceptable then overweight models should be too. It's not like they're morbidly obese!

There are overweight and underweight people in the world and there always will be. They're not endangering their lives, they're just not the perfect weight. I don't think they should have people who weigh 25 stone or 5 stone on the cover of Vogue, but having people of average size (remember, the average clothing size in the UK and Ireland is a 16) should be considered a good thing.

My main question would be where are the models' clothes. I thought Vogue was a fashion magazine? Although the Italian one has always been a bit low-rent imo.


Also congratulations on the job Twee!

Toto Wolfcastle

Posts moved from Off Topic thread.

fghijkl

phasers wrote: »

Well imo if underweight models are acceptable then overweight models should be too. It's not like they're morbidly obese!

There are overweight and underweight people in the world and there always will be. They're not endangering their lives, they're just not the perfect weight.
I don't think they should have people who weigh 25 stone or 5 stone on the cover of Vogue, but having people of average size (remember, the average clothing size in the UK and Ireland is a 16) should be considered a good thing.

That's the thing though isn't it, average doesn't necessarily mean healthy. The reason the average size keeps creeping up and up is that 'ah sure i'm average mentailty'...err yeah you may be 'average' but average is still overweight. You may not be obese but you are putting yourself at an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes etc etc. knocking years off their lives (same goes for underweight people, Osteoporosis and what not), so yeah don't see why advocating being unhealthy over or under weight should be a good thing...

There's plenty of proper 'curvy' as in hourglass models out there who are a healthy weight, there's also plenty of more 'boyish' figured women out there of healthy weight. Surely they should be the aspiration? Healthy should be the aspiration, not skinny/"curvy".

meh just think it's all a publicity stunt. Prob the reason they've lost their clothes.

Twee.

Why, in this types of shoots, are the models always in lingerie, boobs out or practically naked?! It sounds crude, but it's like they want you to look at how fat they are? Obviously these shoots are created to cause a stir, hence the nakedness, and their rarity, but it would be great to see a high fashion shoot with CLOTHES on their bodies! A model is a model, if she's any good she'll make it work. Most women with an ounce of confidence look hot naked, the female form is a wonderful thing! But a lot of women struggle to find clothes to suit their figure. Put clothes on these models!

Your Glamour/Cosmo do features like how to wear XYZ if you're a size 8/12/16 etc, but they're everyday clothes, high street. Let's see them in high fashion!

In saying that I do like the shoot, it's quite sexy IMO. Big hair, flowing fabrics, B&W photography.

SarahBeep!

I think they look AMAZING. I'm a 38F and a size 18, why shouldn't I see people like me in magazines? I'm dyslexic, why shouldn't people with the same condition be in jobs that require reading and writing? It's pretty much the sme thing! I'd be much more likely to buy clothes if I saw it on one of those women as opposed to some little slip of a girl who looks like all she wants is a cheeseburger!

Especially coz this is a lingere shoot, lingere isn't meant to sit there, it's meant to be filled out

fillefatale

To be brief, despite the opinion that some of the models are 'overweight', they're beautiful women, appearance wise they are striking, as models generally are.

Women of all shapes and sizes are into fashion too, I don't need to stress that point, however I wish that the print media represented this accurately, rather than a few token 'curvy women' editorials -rather than this 'look at how inclusive we are, lets give ourselves a pat on the back' malarky.

baby and crumble

I don't understand how anyone could call those women overweight?

Women's bodies are MEANT to be round and squishy. If you look at paintings from the dawn of time on, that is what women's shapes have been. Only in the last 100 years has there been such a dismissal of this natural body shape. It's really weird.

Seriously, to put it bluntly (and it is nearly 3am afterall) those women are hot as fuck and sexy as hell, and they are the shape women are meant to be.

Seriously HOW are they overweight?? They have boobs and arses, oh wow. How horrendous, quick call out the diabetes police. FFS. The world's gone mad.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Tayla

Yes they may be hot but I reckon medically they are definitely classed as overweight.

Also a lot of women who are around the same size as these women wouldn't have such in proportion bodies.

I think they look good but then I also think a lot of skinny models look good and believe it or not a lot of the skinny models wouldn't even be medically classed as underweight.

fillefatale

baby and crumble wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone could call those women overweight?

Women's bodies are MEANT to be round and squishy. If you look at paintings from the dawn of time on, that is what women's shapes have been. Only in the last 100 years has there been such a dismissal of this natural body shape. It's really weird.

That may be so, but you have to see that this has only been the case since we liberated from the corset. So these 'round and squishy' body types were concealed under layers of clothing and corsety meant to manipulate the body into shapes that ultimately regulate the woman's lifestyle.

fghijkl

baby and crumble wrote: »

Seriously HOW are they overweight?? They have boobs and arses, oh wow. How horrendous, quick call out the diabetes police. FFS. The world's gone mad.

They have a waist bigger than 32 inches, and i'd bet a lot of money their BMI is greater than 25, also some of them hold a lot of weight around their stomach area in particular, which is an unhealthy place to hold weight.

It's possible to have big boobs and an arse and be a healthy weight. You don't have to be overweight to be "curvy".

Women's bodies are MEANT to be round and squishy. If you look at paintings from the dawn of time on, that is what women's shapes have been. Only in the last 100 years has there been such a dismissal of this natural body shape. It's really weird.

Not really tbh. Womans bodies are less firm than mens in general yes, 'curve' means just that doesn't it though, the hint of roundness is attractive, the curve of a circle. It doesn't mean the whole circle.

The very first example that comes into my head is venus de milo, greek goddess of beauty, who inspired various forms of art, the 'perfect' female form if you will. Painted by Sandro Botticelli some where between 1445-1510.



Venus de milo is curvy in the proper sense and a lot more healthy(weight wise) than the vogue model IMHO.

Tayla

Isn't the girls face in that pic that fghijkl posted absolutely stunning?:eek:

fghijkl

She's very pretty alright, Candice Huffine, google tells me. Actually found this picture of her actually modelling some shock:eek: clothes!

So much classier than the vogue shoots, makes the vogue shoot even more pointless tbh, and kinda degrading that the plus size models = naked lingerie shoots, but not worthy of modelling 'designer' clothes.:rolleyes:...still think there's a middle ground though between the extremes.

LadyHeart

fghijkl wrote: »

The very first example that comes into my head is venus de milo, greek goddess of beauty, who inspired various forms of art, the 'perfect' female form if you will. Painted by Sandro Botticelli some where between 1445-1510.



Venus de milo is curvy in the proper sense and a lot more healthy(weight wise) than the vogue model IMHO.

The Birth of Venus is actually known for not depicting a natural human form, it is not anatomically possible so although it is an amazing piece of art it doesn't represent the natural female form.

And I agree about the question as to why these women have to be half naked and have their boobs out but I think these women look absolutely amazing and I think that a size 14, 16, 18 whatever the size you are, have a right to be able to look in a magazine and relate. Not everybody is the same size and as long as your healthy (eat right and get enough exercise) you should be able to be happy in your body. All magazines have mainly slim girls in them (I could be wrong, I don't read the likes of Now & Look) so whats the harm in having a few bigger girls in a mag?! And talk of diabetes is a bit much...I reckon the women in this photoshoot take incredible care of their bodies

I would guess that the women in this picture range from a size 12-16? I could be wrong.

LadyHeart

LadyHeart wrote: »

I would guess that the women in this picture range from a size 12-16? I could be wrong.

I looked her up earlier and the woman in the picture above is about 14 US i think, which puts her 16-18 here
about 33"

LadyHeart

bluewolf wrote: »

I looked her up earlier and the woman in the picture above is about 14 US i think, which puts her 16-18 here
about 33"

Wow! I wouldn't look at her and think she was that size. But she is probably the biggest in that shoot I think. Shes very well proportioned. And so beautiful!

When carefully edited she looks very attractive yes, but she would look more so at a healthier weight.
and even after more editing in a professional setting, I can't say I like this one at all:
http://i.models.com/i/db/2010/1/16335/16335-500w.jpg

It's a nice idea to have balance in these magazines, but balance from "unhealthy weight" is "healthy weight", not half-naked overweight models. It's presenting a false dichtomy really, that we must either be stick insects or over weight.

LadyHeart

She looks quite different there. Not the most flattering pose in the world!

bluewolf wrote: »

It's a nice idea to have balance in these magazines, but balance from "unhealthy weight" is "healthy weight", not half-naked overweight models. It's presenting a false dichtomy really, that we must either be stick insects or over weight.

I completely agree. But imo there were women on that shoot that had lovely "bigger" yet healthy figures and the woman in the pic that was quoted with Botticelli's BOV was the biggest on the shoot (I want to quote pics but I don't know how to get the ones I want up, sorry I'm a technotard!) But you are right, there needs to be more emphasis on healthy, strong women but thats not to say "skinny" models in mags aren't healthy but they just represent a smaller percentage of the population.

fghijkl

@ladyheart
Ok the particular painting i picked may not have been the best example but my point was that venus represents the "perfect" female human form, which is not overweight, it may not be atomically correct (perfection isn't even achievable), but visually it represents or supposedly represents 'perfection'.

LadyHeart wrote: »

But imo there were women on that shoot that had lovely "bigger" yet healthy figures and the woman in the pic that was quoted with Botticelli's BOV was the biggest on the shoot (I want to quote pics but I don't know how to get the ones I want up, sorry I'm a technotard!)

Actually from what i can find the models in question range from 12-14 US dress size so i think that would put them in the 16-20 UK dress size bracket, so the "healthiest figure" (smallest) on that shoot was a size 16.

But you are right, there needs to be more emphasis on healthy, strong women but thats not to say "skinny" models in mags aren't healthy but they just represent a smaller percentage of the population.

+1

And talk of diabetes is a bit much...I reckon the women in this photoshoot take incredible care of their bodies

Err can't agree with you there, if they were toned maybe, but personally i don't see having excess weight (which i have myself tbh) as 'taking care' of your body. I also don't think diabetes is out of the realm of possiblity at size 18.

LadyHeart

fghijkl wrote: »

Actually from what i can find the models in question range from 12-14 US dress size so i think that would put them in the 16-20 UK dress size bracket, so the "healthiest figure" (smallest) on that shoot was a size 16.

:eek: Jeez, I didn't think they were that size. I thought they looked bout size 12/14ish, give or take a few inches. Thats why I thought talk of diabetes was a bit much. I really must need my eyesight sorted!

I do think they are beautiful ladies though and they are plus size models but there defo should be a more middle ground, not just ultra slim or bigger girls. As you say, you'd like your children to aspire to a healthy weight thats the same as myself. I hate the thought of my daughter being influenced by the media, she is only a toddler now but she'll grow up fast and I want her to have a healthy body image.

Karona

I really don't know why there is so much outrage over this shoot.... Seriously do you put up a post giving out when skin and bone models are in a magazine? No, I highly doubt it.

I for one am congratulating Vogue on doing this, I am a bigger sized girl and would have a low enough self esteem, I am sick to my teeth of seeing anorexic models in these type of magazines. So for once it is nice to see bigger women in them. I don't think they are morbidly obese in anyway and I think they look fantastic.

And I am sure those people giving out how they shouldn't be in Vogue are probably a size 8. So come on for once let us biggies have a bit of magazine space and quit raving over it. Its 2011 for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:

lainey316

I don't for a minute think they shouldn't be in Vogue, I just don't think they should be held up as a healthy weight, any more than an overly skinny girl like a lot of the models. I like the shoot, but I do think they are obviously overweight.

When the supers were super - Cindy Crawford, Linda E etc etc - normal model size was a US 4 or 6, ie UK8/10. Slim, but not skinny, healthy looking. Now all we seem to have is extremes, US0 (UK4) or US14 (UK18). I'm not into either look, and for the vast majority of people, neither is healthy.

G86

The girl posted above in the black and white looks overweight to me to be honest.

The girls in this link are curvy: http://www.vogue.it/vogue-curvy/the-curvy-blog/2011/07/bra-fitting-pati-jo

R.D. aka MR.D

I totally agree with those saying that this new 'curvy' shouldn't be held up as the ideal.

There are health dangers that cannot be denied related to being overweight.

I just wish that we could see people with bmi 21-24ish in magazines.

I can't look at these overweight girls and imagine how i would look in that outfit anymore than i can if it is on a size 0.

jam_mac_jam

That is not curvy, that is overweight. I think its shocking because you are not used to seeing it. I dont like it myself but its more attractive then the bones sticking out which is what you can also see in magazines. Too far for me.

TommyTippee

Massive arse in this picture.

Unhealthy is never attractive.

Mr. Presentable

People really need to stop refering to overweight as "curvy". It simply normalises an unhealthy state in their minds. These women are generally fat.

Dolbert

I agree that some of these women are overweight.
I also happen to think they look absolutely gorgeous with it.
This thread smacks of 'no fat chicks' in the clever guise of 'medical concern' tbh.

Dolorous

Dolorous wrote: »

I agree that some of these women are overweight.
I also happen to think they look absolutely gorgeous with it.
This thread smacks of 'no fat chicks' in the clever guise of 'medical concern' tbh.

I think we've all made the "no too-skinny chicks" idea clear as well

Dolbert

bluewolf wrote: »

I think we've all made the "no too-skinny chicks" idea clear as well

Oh I know, I'm projecting a little bit as although I am working on losing my excess poundage, I refuse to beat myself up for looking the way I do in the meantime.

Fashion is all about playing with different styles and looks - I see this shoot as something a bit different and interesting to look at. The girls are hardly Beth Ditto in fairness.

I don't see why the chubby gals can't have their day in the sun - medically ideal or not we still exist and reserve the right to be represented in fashion, even if we're not everyone's cup of tea (and slice of cake)

whydoibother?

I find the constant "curvy or fat" question raised in relation to different womens pictures incredibly frustrating because there is a fairly straightforward way of determining whether a persons weight is healthy. It's BMI. It works for most people, bar a few rare exceptions such as professional athletes.

I'm undecided as to whether it's appropriate to have plus-size models or not. But a few points I would make is that the normalization of obesity is a real problem. Studies have shown that large numbers of people cannot identify a person with normal BMI. Because we now see so may overweight people, a lot of people will classify a person who is overweight or even slightly obese as "normal".

Many people will describe such people as looking well or healthy. There is a huge difference between being an unhealthy weight, but being lucky enough not to have experienced health problems, and being a healthy weight, just like I would not classify smoking as healthy, though there are plenty smokers who have not suffered significant ill-effects.

I would definitely expect consistency between the treatment of people who are overweight and underweight when it comes to models. Either both categories with unhealthy BMI's get banned from catwalks or neither do. But I think there is huge unfairness (possibly due to greater numbers of overweight people in the world than underweight) in the banning of very skinny models from the catwalks of Milan and then promoting plus-size.

Toto Wolfcastle

Dolorous wrote: »

medically ideal or not we still exist and reserve the right to be represented in fashion, even if we're not everyone's cup of tea (and slice of cake)

The same could be said about ultra-skinny girls. Medically ideal or not should they be represented in fashion?

Ideally only girls of an ideal weight or healthy looking girls would be used. I have no desire to see either overweight or underweight girls, and this is coming from someone who was for a long time underweight. Using overweight girls could possibly give impressionable girls the justification to remain overweight, and that's as wrong as giving people the impression that being underweight is okay.

It's hard to tell from the way the photos are shot, but some of those girls are overweight and some of them are not.

fillefatale

Dolorous wrote: »

Oh I know, I'm projecting a little bit as although I am working on losing my excess poundage, I refuse to beat myself up for looking the way I do in the meantime.

Fashion is all about playing with different styles and looks - I see this shoot as something a bit different and interesting to look at. The girls are hardly Beth Ditto in fairness.

I don't see why the chubby gals can't have their day in the sun - medically ideal or not we still exist and reserve the right to be represented in fashion, even if we're not everyone's cup of tea (and slice of cake)

I'm with you on this 100%, you worded it better than I could. The fact is that not everyone is at this 'ideal' weight. Its making me uncomfortable that people actually have gone to the effort of finding out the models waist sizes and their clothing sizes.

A woman's beauty seemed to be equatable in waist sizes and standardized numbers created by society, thence a women's self worth can be measured by a clothing size.

Mr. Presentable

whydoibother? wrote: »

I'm undecided as to whether it's appropriate to have plus-size models or not. But a few points I would make is that the normalization of obesity is a real problem. Studies have shown that large numbers of people cannot identify a person with normal BMI. Because we now see so may overweight people, a lot of people will classify a person who is overweight or even slightly obese as "normal".


I would definitely expect consistency between the treatment of people who are overweight and underweight when it comes to models. Either both categories with unhealthy BMI's get banned from catwalks or neither do. But I think there is huge unfairness (possibly due to greater numbers of overweight people in the world than underweight) in the banning of very skinny models from the catwalks of Milan and then promoting plus-size.

Again I say "Stop PCing it. It is not curvy it is not "plus-size" it is overweight". Re the greater numbers of overweight vs underweight, that's only true in about 30% of the world. Admittedly we don't like to see the hungry, and they likely don't get to read Vogue.

fillefatale

fillefatale wrote: »

I'm with you on this 100%, you worded it better than I could. The fact is that not everyone is at this 'ideal' weight.

Nobody has said everyone is at an ideal weight. I am technically overweight judging by bmi of slightly over 25.0. I still don't want to see overweight women in magazines any more than overly skinny ones.

Its making me uncomfortable that people actually have gone to the effort of finding out the models waist sizes and their clothing sizes.

When people are putting up venus de milo pictures and calling them "curvy", then yes, I was curious to find it out. She's a model; it took a google of her name to pop it up.

A woman's beauty seemed to be equatable in waist sizes and standardized numbers created by society, thence a women's self worth can be measured by a clothing size.

Don't be so ridiculous. You're way overprojecting here.

fillefatale

bluewolf wrote: »

Nobody has said everyone is at an ideal weight. I am technically overweight judging by bmi of slightly over 25.0. I still don't want to see overweight women in magazines any more than overly skinny ones.

When people are putting up venus de milo pictures and calling them "curvy", then yes, I was curious to find it out. She's a model; it took a google of her name to pop it up.


Don't be so ridiculous. You're way overprojecting here.

Pardon but I don't remember targeting anyone specific. Nor did I suggest that anyone said there was an ideal weight. The fact that people people keep bringing up dresses size repeatedly as well as sharing their own is totally redundant in my opinion.

A bit of 'overprojecting' at least garners some response. It's also what I have found in my own personal experience.

TommyTippee

Dolorous wrote: »

I don't see why the chubby gals can't have their day in the sun - medically ideal or not we still exist and reserve the right to be represented in fashion, even if we're not everyone's cup of tea (and slice of cake)

I'll tell you why, because these women are ill. They are overweight, their life expectancy is lower than normal. They are unfit, they overeat. They can't do simple day to day things like climb a few flights of stairs or run for a bus. Their thighs rub together so they need cream to stop the chafing. They are fixated with food, grazing all day long and building their days around the next feed. They crave chocolate and sugar. Food isn't in the background, it's what they think about all day long.

They are ill. They are not "chubby" or "curvy" or "bubbly". They are fat. Overweight and fat. Nothing to be proud of and quite a lot to be ashamed of, particularly when people are dying from starvation every day.

whydoibother?

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Again I say "Stop PCing it. It is not curvy it is not "plus-size" it is overweight". Re the greater numbers of overweight vs underweight, that's only true in about 30% of the world. Admittedly we don't like to see the hungry, and they likely don't get to read Vogue.

Yeah, ok, I'll go with overweight if you want.

I was only thinking of the parts of the world where this is relevant. Maybe I should have been more careful in expressing that.

But my general point is that we do pander too much to what people want to hear. Positive self-image is one thing for people who are different shapes and sizes, but when it comes to blatantly misleading people about what is healthy or normal, the balance between mental and physical health has become skewed. People have to face a certain amount of reality about themselves even if they don't like it or find it "difficult". I also don't believe that magazines that put forward what they are doing under the guise of positive self-image, are genuine. They have just worked out that most people like you better if you tell them what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

Dolbert

TommyTippee wrote: »

I'll tell you why, because these women are ill. They are overweight, their life expectancy is lower than normal. They are unfit, they overeat. They can't do simple day to day things like climb a few flights of stairs or run for a bus. Their thighs rub together so they need cream to stop the chafing. They are fixated with food, grazing all day long and building their days around the next feed. They crave chocolate and sugar. Food isn't in the background, it's what they think about all day long.

They are ill. They are not "chubby" or "curvy" or "bubbly". They are fat. Overweight and fat. Nothing to be proud of and quite a lot to be ashamed of, particularly when people are dying from starvation every day.

So what you're essentially saying is 'No Fat Chicks'?

TommyTippee

Dolorous wrote: »

So what you're essentially saying is 'No Fat Chicks'?

In a magazine about beauty and appearance, yes.

It's like having someone with no musical talent appear on stage at a music festival

Oh wait...

spinandscribble

TommyTippee wrote: »

In a magazine about beauty and appearance, yes.

It's like having someone with no musical talent appear on stage at a music festival

Oh wait...

then you'll agree underweight girls have no place either? Plenty of long term health problems associated with being underweight.

To everyone saying those models only look a size 12-14, remember these women are probably 6 foot, they'd be positively ultra skinny as a size 10/12, (not saying they should be size 18s to be healthy however).

baby and crumble

TommyTippee wrote:

I'll tell you why, because these women are ill. They are overweight, their life expectancy is lower than normal. They are unfit, they overeat. They can't do simple day to day things like climb a few flights of stairs or run for a bus. Their thighs rub together so they need cream to stop the chafing. They are fixated with food, grazing all day long and building their days around the next feed. They crave chocolate and sugar. Food isn't in the background, it's what they think about all day long.

They are ill. They are not "chubby" or "curvy" or "bubbly". They are fat. Overweight and fat. Nothing to be proud of and quite a lot to be ashamed of, particularly when people are dying from starvation every day.

You cannot know what these girls, or any overweight people, do every day. You aren't able to read minds and see what they "think about all day long".

I am overweight, I have no problems saying it. Yes I would like to be smaller, and I'm trying. However, I do not have a problem running for a bus, I don't need cream for my thighs (WTF?) and I sure as hell am not fixated by food. I have 3 square meals a day (grazing? I'm not a cow). My blood sugar is perfect, as is my blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol and pretty much anything else you can think of.

By all means, have an opinion on whether these so called "fat chicks" belong in a fashion magazine, but you really have no right to make MASSIVE assumptions based on tv you've seen or an article you've read somewhere along the lines.

TommyTippee

baby and crumble wrote: »

You cannot know what these girls, or any overweight people, do every day. You aren't able to read minds and see what they "think about all day long".

I am overweight, I have no problems saying it. Yes I would like to be smaller, and I'm trying. However, I do not have a problem running for a bus, I don't need cream for my thighs (WTF?) and I sure as hell am not fixated by food. I have 3 square meals a day (grazing? I'm not a cow). My blood sugar is perfect, as is my blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol and pretty much anything else you can think of.

By all means, have an opinion on whether these so called "fat chicks" belong in a fashion magazine, but you really have no right to make MASSIVE assumptions based on tv you've seen or an article you've read somewhere along the lines.

three square meals a day and yet you're still overweight? Pull the other one will ye? It's got bells on it

Salty

TommyTippee wrote: »

three square meals a day and yet you're still overweight? Pull the other one will ye? It's got bells on it

It's your word against hers...tbh, I believe her. She stated in her post that she's overweight, and is doing her best to lose it. Weight loss doesn't happen overnight. It takes several months of healthy eating habits and exercise to lose a considerable amount. You're in no position to judge.

Tayla

whydoibother? wrote: »

I would definitely expect consistency between the treatment of people who are overweight and underweight when it comes to models. Either both categories with unhealthy BMI's get banned from catwalks or neither do. But I think there is huge unfairness (possibly due to greater numbers of overweight people in the world than underweight) in the banning of very skinny models from the catwalks of Milan and then promoting plus-size.

That is a very good point!!

Dolbert

whydoibother? wrote: »

I would definitely expect consistency between the treatment of people who are overweight and underweight when it comes to models. Either both categories with unhealthy BMI's get banned from catwalks or neither do. But I think there is huge unfairness (possibly due to greater numbers of overweight people in the world than underweight) in the banning of very skinny models from the catwalks of Milan and then promoting plus-size.

Because the health equivalent of dropping dead off the side of a catwalk from an anorexia-induced heart attack is not these plus sized models - it would be more akin to morbid obesity. These women are hardly obese, some may be overweight, but not all.

whydoibother?

Dolorous wrote: »

Because the health equivalent of dropping dead off the side of a catwalk from an anorexia-induced heart attack is not these plus sized models - it would be more akin to morbid obesity. These women are hardly obese, some may be overweight, but not all.

I don't see anything in the article that contrasts the health risks associated with being underweight and overweight so I don't know how that is a source with which to dismiss my point.

I will offer you the view of one doctor who has considered the two together. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/health/article-23860762-even-for-models-big-is-never-a-good-look.do

He regards obesity as the bigger challenge.

Dolbert

whydoibother? wrote: »

I don't see anything in the article that contrasts the health risks associated with being underweight and overweight so I don't know how that is a source with which to dismiss my point.

I will offer you the view of one doctor who has considered the two together. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/health/article-23860762-even-for-models-big-is-never-a-good-look.do

He regards obesity as the bigger challenge.

I posted those articles as examples of models who died from starvation, just to show I didn't pull it out of my hat. Nothing to do with 'dismissing' your point, I actually agree that obesity is nothing to promote. Of course being overweight is a serious problem in this day and age.

What I am saying is, I don't think all of these models are even overweight. I bet some of them are in the normal BMI category - the warped fashion industry means that so called 'plus sized' models often are. If you can find an example of a plus-size model dropping dead because of her weight I'd like to see it.

whydoibother?

Dolorous wrote: »

I posted those articles as examples of models who died from starvation, just to show I didn't pull it out of my hat. Nothing to do with 'dismissing' your point, I actually agree that obesity is nothing to promote. Of course being overweight is a serious problem in this day and age.

What I am saying is, I don't think all of these models are even overweight. I bet some of them are in the normal BMI category - the warped fashion industry means that so called 'plus sized' models often are. If you can find an example of a plus-size model dropping dead because of her weight I'd like to see it.

I think a few of them would classify as obese in the technical sense - i.e. having a BMI over 30, but the problem is due to the normalization of being overweight, people think of "obese" as being a lot bigger than it is.

Tayla

When all the controversy about the low BMI models came to light after the deaths of a few then the anti skinny brigade really had a field day and to be honest I think the banning of the low bmi models is for other girls/teenagers/womens benefit rather than for the model themselves.

I actually disagree with your comments Dolorous that plus sized models are often within the healthy BMI range, the healthy BMI range for your height is surprisingly narrow and in fact many people who look thin or lean can in fact be considered to have a unhealthy BMI (because the range is so narrow and doesn't take muscle mass etc into account) so if they can be in what is medically considered an unhealthy weight then surely someone who looks overweight or chubby must be in an unhealthy BMI range aswell.

There are definite flaws with using BMI to estimate whether someone is over or underweight.

We read all the time about the dangers of exposing young girls to rake thin models etc but isn't it just as dangerous to then tell them obese people are normal and average instead of explaining to them that yes it's an average weight for the population but unfortunately it is not a healthy weight.