Originally Posted by Tamika
Actually, it's not about 'diversity'. It's about beauty, and until that change in thinking is made, no real progress will be made.
Teenage girls don't care about diversity, they care about being beautiful and attractive. Full-figured girls won't care if plus-size models are included for the sake of 'diversity', unless they are included in a beautiful context. This politically-correct idea of 'diversity' is almost insulting: 'We still think emaciation is beautiful, but we have to begrudgingly include a few plus-size girls for the sake of being inclusive'.
Quoted for truth.
In many ways, the effort at "diversity" is actually a distraction that could do more harm than good for the aesthetic restoration. Size-celebration shouldn't couple itself with this approach.
I remember a New York Times
article that reported on a study which concluded that "diversity" actually has negative social consequences:
Pertinently, the study was conducted by a left-leaning researcher, and was published in the NYT,
a newspaper with a similar political bent, so for even these entities to acknowledge the study's findings attests to their accuracy.
"Diversity" is why magazines like Girl
failed. Full-figured girls don't want "diverse" magazines, with political agendas, that feature occasional token curvy girls tucked away in a corner somewhere, or merely in "before/after" shopping comparisons. They want all-plus fashion magazines in which full-figured beauty is the ideal
; waif-free environments in which plus-size models who are gorgeous and genuinely full-figured appear in every
layout, every image, photographed to look as chic and alluring as possible. In short, they want Vogue,
but with a pro-plus/curve-adoring instead of pro-anorexia/anti-plus editorial philosophy, and with an aesthetic of timeless beauty (feminine fashions photographed in gorgeous natural and classical/historic locations).