Monday, January 4, 2010

Extremes of the size spectrum

I have a problem with the way that magazines are portraying bodies in their "shape" or "size" issues nowadays -- I know fashion is all about the extremes, but I'm sick of fit, "normal"-bodied girls thinking they're fat because they have muscular thighs or love handles. I'm also sick of magazines portraying the opposite of being skinny as having rolls of fat.
(Photo Credit -- Models.com and V Magazine)
I won't deny that V Magazine's Size Issue, debuting on January 14th, 2010, includes a lot of beautiful editorials that make me rethink my preconceptions of beauty. I won't deny that it is a bold move to display rolls of fat and flabby stomachs in a world that holds models like Sasha Pivovarova to be the epitome of beauty. I also won't deny the fact that 33% of American adults are obese.

However, an exposition of the extremes of size, from prepubescent emaciation to crippling obesity, does nothing but entertain, alarm, and cause controversy and discussion -- I concede that it's not a bad way to sell copies, and that I myself love a heated debate at times.

And yet -- where are the girls with "chunky" thighs because they play soccer every day? Where are the girls with the big breasts that don't match up to the rest of their body (okay, other than in Playboy)? Where are the girls with the flabby arms but fantastic collarbones?

The point is, we mortals all have "imperfections" that don't match up to the airbrushed ideal of perfection, but all we see are the extremes of body types that most people cannot relate to. I'm starting to wonder if we should stop thinking about body types in terms of size, since "big" and "small" just aren't indicative of one's actual shape.

ex.oh.ex.oh
Miss Couturable
blog comments powered by Disqus