Then later, a something or other discussing plus-size women floated by.
Then a thought occurred to me.
'Plus'... as opposed to what?
Does plus mean that which is bigger than the norm?
As a society our bodies are collectively larger than in previous generations.... post Rubenesque generations mind you. And since a 14 is now the average size, it stands to reason that size 14 should not be considered plus!
Rather, I am thinking that
14 should be... IS the new size 0
From that premise one can deduce that anyone below a size 14 is in actuality an under-size.
That especially holds true for models.
They are to represent the archetype of attractiveness and beauty.
And 14 is the exact size attributed to the grande dame of attractive archetypes in the US.
I of course refer to Marilyn Monroe.
OK, so to make sure I have this right, the reality of things informs us that 14 is the actual 'model' size of the 'average' American woman. Anything smaller would be considered under-sized.
So as far as I can tell, the bell curve favors the hour-glass... or as I heard quipped when I was a tot... "As long as she has curves, he has lines."
love this thanks for writing and saying what is so blatently obvious yet never shown in the general media. kills me that magazines who under sized women to model clothes that will never look that way on a real woman. not to say smaller women are less then a plus sized woman. but really cloth hanges differently when there are curves or lumps and bumps. logic prevails in that reality, i know advertising is neither logical nor real. but it is annoying to look at and never see what real normal average women are shaped like. even plus size models are under a size 14, or have to be padded to appear bigger. silliness! real is real and honesty is never bad, may not be easy. neither is life.
ReplyDeleteHear hear! Thank you for your spot on though-inspiring comments.... too true!
Delete