Don't look now, but Glamour's at it again, "championing" the plus-size model. And, in theory, we're all for it, but this photo on page 147 of the February issue made us do more than a double-take. Hear us out.In the issue, plus-size model du jour Crystal Renn, shown in the image at left, stars in a multi-page fashion spread, modeling sheer, lacy clothing and lingerie in neutrals and pastels.
The shoot itself is beautiful. The problem? The fact that, if you look closely, Renn may simply be zipping or unzipping her dress, but judging by the lack of droopy fabric on either side of the zipper, the image seems to suggest that said dress is too small to fit her -- that, in fact, she's a size 12 straining to fit into a size four.
And, all in all, the photo sends a majorly mixed message.
The first contradiction is this: The model really isn't all that large. In fact, none of the "plus-size" models Glamour has been promoting recently seem any different from, well, normal women. Doesn't it strike you as slightly insulting that the average American woman is being represented by "plus-size models," while real-life plus-size women aren't being represented at all?
The whole plus-size hullaballoo started back in September 2009, when Glamour ran a small, nearly nude photograph of a plus-size model seated sideways, wearing a thong. Mere hours after the magazine hit newsstands, Glamour.com received thousands of comments on the photo -- and upwards of one million page views.
Newsflash: Woman in women's mag actually looks like one of us! The response was so rabid, "the woman on page 194" appeared on CNN, "Access Hollywood" and the "Today" show to discuss the photograph. It also spurred a November Glamour feature on plus-size models, promising "a continued commitment to showing a wide range of body types ... [and] enthusiastic support for any designer who manufactures chic clothes we can photograph on full-bodied models."
Apparently the designers aren't quite on board yet.
Now we have what will soon be known as "the photo on page 147," which sure makes it look like Crystal Renn would have to slim down to fit into the clothes she's been asked to model. And it begs the question: Why put "plus-size" models in your pages, then portray them in a way that suggests their clothes don't -- or won't -- fit?
Even more interesting are the clothing sizes in question at all.
Plus-size models clock in, on average, as an eight or 10. The average American woman is a size 14. So, by Glamour's standards, most of us wouldn't even be able to get the zipper up that far. And we're still a long way from seeing images in a magazine that celebrate a wide variety of female bodies -- tall and skinny, small and voluptuous, whatever the curves may be -- represented fairly.
Back in that September issue, Glamour did concede that "plus-size models aren't all that 'plus.'" What they meant by plus size, the magazine said, was "plus size" in the modeling industry, where norms can range from zero to four, and any model over that size is quickly and unceremoniously put on a diet.
Of course, part of the problem is the consistently small sample sizes that designers send to photo shoots, but why does that practice have to persist? Is a Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein marketing exclusively to models and Kate Moss? Last we checked, everyone from the Gap to Saks Fifth Avenue sold a diverse range of sizes.
But that quirky fact may go a long way in explaining why plus-size models are nearly always depicted naked in the pages of fashion magazines: Anyone over a size four literally doesn't fit into Glamour's "new definition of gorgeous."
Is the magazine to be congratulated? In our opinion, not yet. Are the editors' hearts in the right place? Of course. But until the acceptable norms surrounding women's bodies are let out yet again, we're here to give Ms. Renn a little help with that zipper.
Our friend Lauren at College Candy, a plus-size girl herself, is torn about the whole trend: "If their goal, as they state, is to change the way we view beauty and really represent the real women living and shopping in this country, they're going about it all wrong." Click here to read her thoughts.
Liz Funk is a freelance writer, author, and speaker who focuses on young women's wellness. Her first book, "Supergirls Speak Out: Inside the Secret Crisis of Overachieving Girls" was published last year by Simon and Schuster.More Good Stuff on the Web
A dude's plea -- Girls, stop doing this on dates
Advice: He's had sex with 150 women and hasn't "tried" anything with me. What gives?
Amazing Photo Set: What the heck were these people THINKING?
Jennifer Love Hewitt bedazzled her whaaaaaaaaat?
Our sex excuses, decoded for guys. (NSFW)












Comments:
Add a comment
Friday 15 January
By Lynn
I think you are missing the point of the "plus size" models completely. I give many props to Glamour for starting this trend of normal sized models. As long as other magazines, Cosmo, Womens Health, Elle, etc. continue to use the super skinny models, the fashion designers will continue to make their samples a size 2, because, in all blunt honesty, clothes look better on thin people. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that the super thin are more actractive than the average sized, in fact, I think its the opposite. Who wants to see a woman's rib cage sticking out like a skeleton? No me. I think the solution to the problem would be to ask ALL womens magazines to use "plus size" women. Then, maybe after that becomes the norm, the "plus sized" will go from a 4 to a 14. And in regards to the comment, "Last we checked, everyone from the Gap to Saks Fifth Avenue sold a diverse range of sizes." The clothes in the stores are not the sample clothes that the designers send, which are not out yet. Its not like the magazine editor can run down to the mall and get a size 4 of the same outfit shipped directly from the designer.
I respect your opinion, but I think it is doing little to help the real problem. You should be celebrating a magazine fighting for a change instead of belittling the small amount of change they are making.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By agkamel2
Here is the link the leaves zip closed when Tickled! Http://tiny.cc/Ticklemeplant
Sunday 17 January
By Sarah :)
i pretty much agree with her. yeah i'm super skinny like most modles but, it's not like i'm starving or puking. i eat enough for me to feel compleetly satisfied and not want more. anyway i think this article is stupid. yeah, she may not actualy fit the clothes but it looks like they tryed to make it look like she is unziping and pulling back the extra fabric to look sexy or something. and the fact that they put pretty helthy siez women in the magazine and not fat or super skinny is a good thing. last time i checked it was good to be normal sized skinny and not super skinny. you are usualy helthy when you are a good size. i cant talk too much because im underweight, im ok with that. still i think it is a good idea to be promoting average sized people on magazines.
Sunday 17 January
By cl
So are you saying that since "clothes look better on thin people" that anyone heavier than a size 2 should go naked or are you saying that we shouldnt be seen in public???
If magazines want a plus sized model maybe they should use PLUS SIZED WOMEN. Not women who have a little meat on their bones.
Monday 18 January
By karissa
excuse me,but i would likee to strongly disagree with your statement that clothes look better on small people.have you ever walked by a torrid store?or seen a size 14 girl in a wedding dress?or seen the new line at forever 21 for larger women??because if you have then i can't believe you still stand by that statement, because those women look GORGEOUS in what they are wearing. i actually would say that they look better then the skinny models.im not being bias because i have plenty beautiful and thin friends, but you shouldnt go around saying that they look better in clothes.open your eyes lady.
Monday 18 January
By Barbara
I don't think she is missing the point at all. The so call Plus Sized models they have in their magazines are sizes 10, 12, and 14. But there are 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28 and so on. No they are NOT healthy by any means, but they are still your average PLUS SIZE models. And even though they have size 10, 12, and 14 they are tall MODEL types, MOST plus size women are not TALL, they are in fact on the shorter side.
But yes I commend Glamour for starting to make AVERAGE women normal! We see them walking around our streets more then the THINNER models so good job for starting things, but just like everything the first one is going to have mistakes and will need the kinks to be straightened out....so hopefully GLAMOUR will start fixing some kinks and realizing that PLUS size is not just sizes 10, 12, or 14, and that not all women are 5'10 and taller.
You are right clothes do look better on thinner models, but that is because the clothes are cut for thinner people! The clothes in stores like Lane Bryant are actually cut for bigger people.
I am a plus size women and unfortunately even after Gastric Bypass I still remain a plus size woman and I read glamour. I find it a good magazine and it has great styles and columns. However, the only way that designers will change is if the PUBLIC and the INDUSTRY(magazines, moveis, TV shows, etc) get on the band wagon and start including and demanding plus size clothing from designers.
Friday 15 January
By Emily
I support that magazines are leaning toward using the fashion world's so called "plus-sized models". I applaud them for giving a representation of a healthy-looking, not just skin and bones woman. I also don't understand why they are under fire for not always represening real world plus sized women. The average American woman may be a size 14, but that doesn't mean that magazines should flip from showing nearly impossibly thin fashion models to encouraging obesity. I think a good middle ground is nice, for a change.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By amylynnstevens
Kudos!
Monday 18 January
By Emily A.
I agree! I am about her size. And while I usually get annoyed by seeing size zeroes and two's I am equally annoyed by the size 14's. Yes that might be the "average" size, but that is also why the average American is overweight!
Emily A.
Monday 18 January
By kat
a size 14 is NOT obese.
Monday 18 January
By pam
I hardly think a size 14 is considered 'obese'.....come on now. Maybe they should call women size 6-14 'normal sized' female models instead of 'plus sized'. Women come in many sizes and weights and bone sizes. To only show models super tall and ultra slim all the time may look good to some and flatter the designers fashion, but doesn't give a normal sized woman a clue on how it would look on herself.
Saturday 16 January
By Lisa Washington
Have to laugh.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Jenniferh021
Who really cares??? I mean, if you feel comfortable in your own skin, then you do not NEED to see models wearing a size 0, 2 or 12, 14...that's my opinion.
I will never base my life or feel "less of a woman" after seeing the models in these magazines!! Let's be honest, some of them look like they're starving, some look great but the majority of them have heinous faces anyway!!
I enjoy seeing the models in FITNESS magazines. Now THOSE are examples of healthy women!!
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Anthony
Ok, but what about the women who try and try and try and TRY SO HARD to lose weight, but can't, no matter what they do? The women who will try anything out there to lose the weight? The ones who exercise religiously, drink tons of water and green tea, and consume fewer calories than they burn? Or the ones who have tried enlisting the help of whatever diets and supplements are out there, along with exercise and other healthy habits? Or how about the women who have had kids and can't lose the "post-baby body" without the help of a plastic surgeon? Or even the women out there that have naturally stocky builds? Or the women who can't exercise because of problems they've had for a long time, like a bad hip? Are they all wrong simply because they are a size 10, 12, or 14? You could be the healthiest woman in the world and still be a plus size.
Sunday 17 January
By Merrily
Jennifer, you don't get the point. As long as models are depicted as so thin you can count their ribs and not see enough flesh to cover their shoulder blades. This doesn't look healthy. The women who buy and look at these mags are young women who get their style sense from these mags. If they can't be thin, they starve themselves, as do the models, to look thin. It can lead to all kinds of disorders one of which is anorexia, which is life threatening. Kate Moss, who was a model several years ago, supposedly took cocaine to keep her weight down.
Do you get it now?
Monday 18 January
By Barbara
Oh Jennifer...When you are wrong you are WRONG...my dear let me tell you something about women who are over weight and men too....Just because someone is overweight does NOT mean they are UNHEALTHY...I can show you and introduce you to many many many many non overweight people who are athletes who are UNHEALTHY! Trust me being overweight does not mean you are unhealthy all the time. Please do some research on what is considered healthy and what isn't! Being healthy has nothing to do with your size as much as it has to do with what you consume, how much, and what you do in life. Healthy is someone who eats good food in small quantities and is happy in life. I work in an ER and see people who I think are healthy just by the way they look, but when their labs come back they are near death.
Monday 18 January
By Jenniferh021
For Anthony... I have no idea why you are referencing people that are overweight and cannot lose it, I did not "knock" anyone. I think that "healthy" women should be depicted... that is what I said, not once did I reference what SIZE healthy is because it varies for EVERYONE. And PLEASE NOTE my 1st comment, which I meant: "If you feel comfortable in your own skin..."
For Merrily...DO I GET IT?? Yup, you don't. You are taking what I stated and making some ridiculous statement that doesn't pertain to my post. I referenced an article that said that a size 12/14 did not FIT the model and my opinion is and remains that we should not depict larger than that. End of story. Yes, as I stated the FIRST time, some of the models look like they're STARVING... I don't condone that, either. I simply condone HEALTH. Whatever the size may be. I will not condone obesity. Tough.
Monday 18 January
By Jenniferh021
OH BARBARA...I really do not care where you work, that does not make you anymore educated on this subject than I am. You have no idea what size I am, what education I have or what I do for a living, so kindly, do not lecture me on this.
Like I said, as long as a person (he or she) is HEALTHY, that is all that matters. I am not referencing models, doctors, lawyers, homemakers, fast food eaters, etc. I am simply referencing PEOPLE. Can't you find a way to GRIP that?
I KNOW what healthy is and what healthy IS NOT... and regardless of WHERE you work, you need to learn (quickly) that the FACTS are that BELLY FAT causes more strain on hearts than having large hips!!! For crying out loud, what part of THAT don't you understand???? And HEALTHY is a WHOLE lot more than good eating habits!!!!!
I am not here to knock people of any size - I do not care. I feel that the ONLY thing ANY magazine should show are HEALTHY people (regardless of pant size) and no, I do not think that EVERY size 2, 4, 6 or 12 is HEALTHY if they LOOK good...I am talking about FIT as well and HEALTHY in the true sense of the word.
Do you need a microphone? I noticed that you came in and made a whole lot of comments on what people have to say, you seem to be the "know it all" on this subject...Perhaps you should hold a class for the rest of us.
The point is, a person could be a size 8 and work out 7 days a week but east food with high fructose corn syrup, pesticides, drink coffee, smoke cigarettes...but they "look good"...that does NOT make them HEALTHY. You are not speaking to an uneducated child so do not address me that way.
Good Luck.
Sunday 17 January
By Alli
So in your opinion; Liz, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't? I think this whole Glamour, plus size model thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Quit trying to use it as a foothold for your own personal notoriety and be happy that they are making gains towards a new approach to fashion and body image. After all, if the average American woman is a size 14, who's buying the magazine? Big, little, fat , thin, Glamour and its competitors are making millions of dollars off of the public. If they were doing something wrong I doubt this would be the case. Personally (and I'm not proud of this) I think most fashion looks better on the thin. If Crystal Renn and Giselle Bundchen were both hawking the same wares I think I would be more drawn towards Giselle. Not because I identify with her body type, but because I aspire towards her body type. At the end of the day that is the bottom line. Am I happy with myself? Absolutely. Would I love to look like Giselle in a pair of jeans? Indubitably. I don't think it matters what we look like. It's what we wish we looked like. And every plus size star that has said "big is beautiful" has gone out of her way to show us her weight loss. Marissa Jaret Winokur, Camryn Manheim, Mo'Nique, have all lost weight in the public. No matter what; though, health should be the deciding factor. Whether you are a size 2 or 22 it's about what you feel good at and about. Glamour should be applauded for recognizing and taking steps towards celebrating all women.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Anita
I would like to look like Giselle in a pair of jeans too, but I won't because I don't have that body type. So what is wrong with emulating plus size models in their confidence and beauty? I would rather try to find fashions that flatter me the way I am, not the me I never will be. When I see a plus model it helps me to confirm in myself that I am pretty, desirable and a woman worth loving.