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
Sunday 17 January
By jeri
size 12 is considered a plus size?
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Heather
This article misses the whole point of Glamour's article. And the point is that modeling agencies' sample clothing IS way too small for the average woman (a size 12-14) let alone a woman who is (what USED to be the modeling standard) a size 4! And so with Ms. Renn being a size 12, OF COURSE she looks like she cannot zip up that dress because she cannot! The real reason that most of the fashion industry is not and WILL NOT be quick to make size 8-14 sample clothing is that if it did this for every "plus-sized" model it hired, the cost of the fabrics alone would bankrupt it! The reason is NOT that women over a size 4 photographed in clothes look fat-even if this was the case, photo editors with Photoshop and the click of a mouse button can make pretty much any "alterations" they deem necessary. And believe me, even the most well-paid supermodels today are Photoshopped to death-the most popular alteration is making the boobs bigger! And if you ladies size 6 and over don't believe me, then go to VS and try on their bikinis (which their supermodels "mysteriously" wear so effortlessly) and you will see what I'm talking about! So in saying all this, just be the healthiest and strongest you can all be, no matter what your size-not all clothing is made equally after all!!
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Paul
I can't help but wonder if that wasn't meant to be titilating: a woman half-way out of her dress. As for the question of plus size fashion: this is dead on. I always have trouble finding plus size fashions to put on display. It is better now than when I started though. See what's available here:
http://loveoffashion.com/PlusSizeShoppe.html
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By becca
how does the author know she is trying to zip the dress UP in that picture? looks to me like she's UN-zipping it. when a woman wants to get into a too small dress she does not sit down and slouch, she stands up and sucks it in.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By awill
When does a woman EVER try and zip up a dress zipper while she is sitting down? I question this picture.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By wesley
the problem with some high fashion models are the only difference between the women and the boys are the boys penis's women are suppose to have extra fat to create the breast and the softness. Please keep the womens body womenly not the idea of a hungery little boy who bought some boobs!!!
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By KatieCouric'sNemesis
The rag mags can put any model they want on the cover. Plus sized or not, those women are photo-shopped and airbrushed into what a gay designer thinks women should look like--in other words, men with boobs and shaved legs.
So, I will wear what I want and weigh what I want and eat what I want. If that doesn't suit Fashion Avenue, tough. I don't lose a minute's sleep about it.
And, design for all the size two's you want, gentleman...the fact remains that it's a rare woman indeed who, after seven decades of life, several pregnancies, and menopause is still a size two--if she ever was!
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Pat
While the so called plus size models are a size 12 (that's a normal size) unless they'r calling the 12 and 15 yr. olds that wear size "0" normal, they look just fine, and the twigs look as though they are starving to death. AND that's the ones' the designers like to dress, (the walking dead). I just don't understand how they think a size "0" will translate well to a small 12 let alone size 16 or more? They must start getting in touch with the real women and men in this world. I have seen some really cute out fits on the twigs and JUST know that it will not look good on me, and I'm starving for really cute clothes that are flattering for ME, not the walking dead.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Lauren
Ummm maybe they are trying to hint to the designers why don't u send us normal sized women samples!!!!
I did not take the "I cant zipper up the dress pic" as offensive.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Boom
Don't forget that more fabric is used to get the larger sizes. It might just be more convenient to send small than large. I mean, duh! Smaller sizes are more cost effective....
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By gliese
Do we really want or need anyone to "champion" plus size anything, much less in reference to how much fat a person is carrying, especially in this glut, yes, glut of obesity we now see in nations that get enough to eat. Girls starving themselves is just not even close to the problems of obesity that is causes rampant health cost and problems even including death. Why is it always people who are already overweight who are the first to holler "anorexic"!
And, since when does something become OK just because it's managed to become "average" due to the influx of the masses.
Besides which, that model isn't posed any different than thinner models, it just looks different when you have more fat on you.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By K
The problem isn't the size of a plus size model, it's the shape, i.e. a "plus size" model has one. Anyone who's made a blouse or dress can tell you, straight is easy, curves are not. The designers will say it's asthetics...agencys will say it's versitility...but if you've ever compared a size zero dress to a size 8, you'll see a difinitive difference in skill required to create a flattering bust and hip line for someone who has them. And I loathe to defend the fashion industry's use of anorexic size models, but it is also more cost effective to create smaller "sample-size" clothes...they're samples, prototypes, not truly meant to be "worn".
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By M
Thinness, obesity, or body shape in general is a physical indication of wealth. A few centuries ago, "beautiful" was plus size because it showed that you came from a family that could afford to overfeed you. But that was back when the average woman was not corpulent and food was scarce. Now that food is plentiful, the trend is to look like you are so wealthy that you don't need to eat; that you are not concerned with loading up on food since you are pretty sure of when and from where your next meal is coming. Also, the quality of food for the average person has declined so much that our poor and middle income citizens are obese. We no longer have access financially to the organic food, straight from the earth to your hearth...food full of nutrients and vitamins. The type of food average people can afford to buy at the grocery store has been mass produced in a factory somewhere, freeze-dried for shelf life, canned with tons of sodium and preservatives to keep it from rotting, and has absolutely no nutritional value and by golly- lots of high fructose corn syrup!! This "fallout shelter" food is cheap to produce and affordable to consumers. Also, fast food is popular amongst those of lower income brackets because of the convenience factor. They work themselves near to death in low paying jobs with no health benefits or insurance, and at the end of the day they don't have the energy to invest in making a decent meal to put on the table for their family.
Let's stop treating obesity as if it were a crime. You are really just finding a convenient excuse to condescend...This is an issue about self-control, and people expect others to be able to control their bodies, especially women. And it is much easier for rich skeletal twats to sleep at night if they feel they are criticizing people for being fat, which should be within their control, rather than for being poor, which is far more difficult to transcend.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By M
Thinness, obesity, or body shape in general is a physical indication of wealth. A few centuries ago, "beautiful" was plus size because it showed that you came from a family that could afford to overfeed you. But that was back when the average woman was not corpulent and food was scarce. Now that food is plentiful, the trend is to look like you are so wealthy that you don't need to eat; that you are not concerned with loading up on food since you are pretty sure of when and from where your next meal is coming. Also, the quality of food for the average person has declined so much that our poor and middle income citizens are obese. We no longer have access financially to the organic food, straight from the earth to your hearth...food full of nutrients and vitamins. The type of food average people can afford to buy at the grocery store has been mass produced in a factory somewhere, freeze-dried for shelf life, canned with tons of sodium and preservatives to keep it from rotting, and has absolutely no nutritional value and by golly- lots of high fructose corn syrup!! This "fallout shelter" food is cheap to produce and affordable to consumers. Also, fast food is popular amongst those of lower income brackets because of the convenience factor. They work themselves near to death in low paying jobs with no health benefits or insurance, and at the end of the day they don't have the energy to invest in making a decent meal to put on the table for their family.
Let's stop treating obesity as if it were a crime. You are really just finding a convenient excuse to condescend...This is an issue about self-control, and people expect others to be able to control their bodies, especially women. And it is much easier for rich skeletal twats to sleep at night if they feel they are criticizing people for being fat, which should be within their control, rather than for being poor, which is far more difficult to transcend.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Anna
She's sitting down for gods sake, of course it's going to look like the dress is to small. Do you people have nothing better to write about or complain about?
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Shawn
Being a real plus-size woman wearing a size 14-16, I don't feel the magazine potray plus-size women accurately, We live in the real world not the one made up by superficial and vein people who judge beauty by color and size. This Magazine is bull, just as the fashion world is as well, plus size "BBB", means BIG, BEAUTIFUL, and BETTER THAN, anyone and anything that have a problem with them. Live in the real world
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Lauren
First of all it's not good to just judge on the fact that the average American woman is size fourteen. It appears that someone forgot that much of America is obese now, AKA unnaturally large, which is just as bad as being unnaturally skinny. It seems like everyone is more ready to hate on super skinny people than super fat people when both cases pose a problem. It's also personally upsetting as well since I am a naturally skinny person.
If America was eating healthy and everyone was at a good body weight for their type, the average would probably be closer to a 6-8.
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Ck
Are you kidding? plus sized models are about size 10? smaller then average woman. No wonder that our daughters are growing up trying to starve themselves. Guys might love those skinny bones...and think real women are getting chunky. but get real, And why are these top magazines aloud to use unhealthy, severely anorectic women as role models??
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By PANSY
Plus size my big butt!! anyone under size 12 is skinny....14-16 is normal......plus size starts at 18 ....20...and up............do you ever see any models for size 18, 20...or how about a 3x model.....................come on......stop trying to make people feel that they are just to big....not normal...not right.........reason's to not be skinny.......you look older faster!! bones sticking out every where is gross............hey a little meat fills out the face and you get to look so much younger for so much longer.........women around a size 16-24 look so much better than size 0, 2, 4, 5, 6's........i've been there and i rather be the size 16 i am today then the size 5 i was for years!!!
Reply
Sunday 17 January
By Zanessa8915
I am a size 14. I have just recently went to the doctor. I am very healthy and i am not obese. Just because someone is not a size 4, that does not automatically mean they are obese. This whole thing about overweight.....it is basing peoples weight on what you think they SHOULD weigh to look good, not what they NEED to weigh to be healthy.
I am so tired of seeing and hearing everything obsess over weight and size. Everyone's body has a different weight that is acceptable for them, and no two people should be comapared.
I think the magazine should get some credit for trying, when other magazines are not. But they really can do some improving, because that picture is a little tricky on what it is showing.
Plus size models for the most part are not plus size. They need to do some improving on choosing plus size. A size 8 is realy not plus.
Most people will say that skinny people look better in most all clothes, but there are a few exceptions. Plus size people should not have to be made to wear the same clothes that skinny people wear. There are a ton of plus size clothes that look amazing!!
I can not change how other people feel about this issue, I just know that I would love to see a size 14 model wearing some amazing clothes that I couls go out and buy. But I will not change how I feel about myself and my body, because magazines put skinny size 2 models in there magazine. I will admire how great they look, and hope I could look that amazing in that outfit.
Reply