View Single Post
Old 9th May 2010   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2008
Posts: 417
Default Re: Nine in 10 girls pressued to starve (article)

Just a couple of short blurbs from this article that I felt worth sharing in this thread.


This week a Scottish teenager was lauded as the next top plus-size model, despite being a measly size 12 against the national average of 16.

It's welcome to hear a size 12 referred to as "measly." People are finally rising up against the fashion industry's offensive use of faux-plus models deceptively passed off as plus-size. The public wants to see TRUE plus-size models, size 16 and up, not size 12s.

Worse yet, as the source of this is a U.K. story, they mean size 12 in British sizing, which is even smaller than U.S. sizing (!).

It's disgusting. I refuse to accept any model size 12 or smaller as a representative of full-figured fashion.


Being able to tip oneself into a small dress is not such a stellar achievement; its not worth any level of pride.

However, being thin has become desirable, partly because we judge character on the superficial and weight is an easy and instant marker to assess. But a thin woman does not look better she just looks thinner. Bones are not beautiful poking through skin.

Bravo. So many size activists still implicitly accept the misguided notion that thinner is better and that full-figured women should just not pay as much attention to external beauty. What self-hating nonsense! Starvation does NOT improve beauty, and thinner women look worse than curvy girls. There is nothing attractive about bones "poking through the skin," and I applaud this writer for saying so.
Hannah is offline   Reply With Quote