View Full Version : The media's skewed definition of ''plus size''

9th April 2010, 21:28
E! recently showed a show called Sexiest: Voluptous Vixens. After watching it, it was obvious the writers had no Idea what plus-size means. There was not one girl that I saw that was remotely voluptuous. All of them were just as underweight as every other mainstream waif. There was no mention of Christina Schmidt, Chloë Agnew, Jessica West, or any other true voluptuous vixen. By the end, I was literally yelling at my TV, asking where the beautiful plus size women were listed in their countdown.

The TV schedules do not show reruns of the program in the near future, which I believe is good, considering they are sending yet another false definition of true beauty.

25th October 2010, 03:31
<br>Your frustration is understandable, and is certainly shared by every reader of this Web site.

What Clay encountered in the program that he describes was a particularly insidious stratagem on the part of the diet-starvation/ exercise-torture industries (as abetted by the media). By falsely labelling actresses who are still extremely thin (but just a shade less emaciated than other celebrities) "curvy," the diet-pushers hope to ensnare those women who are impervious to the usual kind of starvation propaganda, which employs size-0 skeletons.

There is nothing actually "curvy," in the sense of full-figured, about celebrities such as Jennifer Lopez or Beyoncé. But it serves the purposes of the starvation industry to label them as such. Why? Because when a luscious, healthy woman who is a size 20, or 22, or 24 encounters a scrawny size-0 model, it is possible for her to dismiss this stick insect as not having any relation to herself. The difference in their physiques is too great. But if the same woman sees an actress labelled "curvy" who is a <i>tiny</i> bit bigger than anorexic, she cannot so easily ignore the comparison. <i>"If <b>she</b> is curvy,"</i> the full-figured woman thinks to herself, <i>"then what am I? A freak?"</i>

By insidiously redefining "curvy" to mean practically the same thing as "thin," with <i>both</i> body types being unnatural and underweight, the diet-pushers move the goalposts. They narrow the parameters until all healthy, shapely women are excluded from the paradigm of normality. As a result, the majority of women are tricked into thinking that they must be excessively proportioned, simply because they fall outside the circumscribed limits of what is called "curvy."

It would be as if the media acknowledged 7'0 women as "tall" but called 6'0 women "petite." Everyone under 6'0 would suddenly feel freakishly short, because they wouldn't even measure up to the "petite" paradigm. But the only reason why they would feel this way is because the parameters for "petite" had been set unnaturally, absurdly high.

Calling skinny celebrities "curvy" exemplifies the same form of reality-twisting, except in this case it has a dark side, because whereas no one can alter their height, women are constantly tricked into thinking that they can diminish their naturally full proportions to match those of the so-called "curvy" celebrities.

In truth, the "curvy" honorific should only properly be applied to women who are genuinely full-figured, such as the celebrities whom Clay offers as examples.

This is all the more reason why the <i>plus-size</I> fashion industry should only accept models who are <i>truly</i> plus-size: so that full-figured customers can see models to whom they can relate, models in a range of sizes (16 to 28) within which the customers themselves will be included.

<i>Curvy</i> Jessica West, size 14/16, Ford Toronto--a model who actually <i>would</I> deserve to be included in a show titled <i>Voluptous Vixens.</I><p><center><img src="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/jw/jw09a.jpg"></center><p>- <a href="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/jw/jw09.jpg"" target="_blank">Click to view larger</a>