Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Register Login What's New Settings

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

|

RSS |

Follow Newser on Twitter

Twitter

Newser - Current News - Breaking Stories

WHAT'S YOUR VICE?

Twitter = Crack, and
Other Web Equivalents

YouTube is like shots of tequila; Gmail is caffeine

Nov 22, 09 1:28 PM CST
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

Nov 22, 09 11:15 AM CST
Fox News Lets
Jon Get Under
Its Skin, Again

Stewart's "go bleep yourself" to Goldberg gets O'Reilly's attention

Nov 20, 09 8:25 AM CST
Demi Moore:
That's Really
My Hip!

W mag cover not photoshopped, she says, even if unbelievable

Nov 20, 09 9:08 AM CST
HE'S GOT A BOOK OUT, TOO

Beck to Unveil
'Big Plan' at
Saturday Rally

Righty pundit OK with destroying Dems and GOP

Nov 20, 09 8:07 PM CST
Bing, News Corp Talks
Offer Hope for Media

Media could gain from brewing bidding war

7 hours, 35 minutes ago
tv review

Project Runway
Limps to Season's End

Like the rest of Season 6, finale was a bore

Nov 20, 09 2:19 PM CST
6 contenders

Who Will Be the Next Oprah?

Rachael Ray, Sarah Palin, and other potential replacements

Nov 20, 09 1:49 PM CST
SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Sullivan Back; Still Hates Palin

Calls her book 'manifesto for the imagined life'

Nov 19, 09 8:49 PM CST
PILING ON

Fox Caught Fudging
Footage Again

This-just-in Palin video actually from '08 campaign

Nov 18, 09 7:39 PM CST
ADL: Beck Is Top
Hate Monger

He's offering 'platform to extremists,' report charges

Nov 18, 09 2:09 AM CST
Emotional Oprah: 'It's Time'

Winfrey tells fans 25 seasons the 'perfect number' to end on

Nov 20, 09 10:54 AM CST
Palin Slams 'Sexist' Newsweek

Bloggers divided over Runner's World photo

Nov 17, 09 2:04 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Glamour Goes Plus-Size, Nude Again

Six full-figured models will join beloved Lizzi Miller in the buff

By Evann Gastaldo| Posted Sep 1, 09 10:19 AM CDT|

Share

Share

(Newser) – Inspired by the outpouring of enthusiasm (and press, no doubt) over the appearance of plus-size model Lizzi Miller—pooch and all—in its September issue, Glamour will feature a bevy of nude plus-size models in a November spread, insiders tell the New York Post. Miller will be back, joined by Kate Dillon and five other models, who were photographed Friday.

Kate Dillon will be featured in Glamour's November issue.

Kate Dillon will be featured in Glamour's November issue. (Getty Images)

Amy Lemons will be featured in Glamour's November issue.

Amy Lemons will be featured in Glamour's November issue. (Getty Images)

Crystal Renn will be featured in Glamour's November issue.

Crystal Renn will be featured in Glamour's November issue. (AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere)

Anansa Sims, left, will be featured in Glamour's November issue.

Anansa Sims, left, will be featured in Glamour's November issue. (Getty Images)

Lizzi Miller is shown on Glamour's website.

Lizzi Miller is shown on Glamour's website. (Glamour)

Lizzi Miller is shown in Glamour.

Lizzi Miller is shown in Glamour. (anseratop)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

OFF THE GRID

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

54 comments

VIEWING:

Observer
Sep 1, 09 10:24 AM CDT

Naturally large women can still be sexy. (They also try harder in bed.) Disgusting obese pigs are another story. Only weirdos like real fatties. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 1, 09 11:06 AM CDT

Observer is getting heat because of the politically incorrect tone to his message, but I think he(?) is trying to be nice. Look, men are going to like what they like. Yes, it's TOTALLY media driven as to whether thick or thin women are fashionable (as men's fickleness in this area over the centuries can attest), and it seems likely that genetically and primally, for men, a woman with more fat (within reason) is more feminine, aka, the 'luxury model'. What research I have seen on this seems to indicate that as long as the woman's waist is proportionally significantly smaller than the rest of her, men will find her body to be an erotic trigger. Men who can't find the 'hourglass' at significant amplitudes erotic, and who aren't gay, are probably those who don't think for themselves, and who are unduly affected by what they perceive as the prestige component in having a girlfriend/wife. They are concerned with their woman as an accessory to their fashion and success story and have lost touch with their primal sexuality. I've met both types of men, and I can say that though I'm not a large girl, I can distinguish one 'type' of man from the 'other'. I can say that a man who appreciates women of all sizes is the REAL man who makes a real connection with women. The others, sexually, are just boys.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+6

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 3:02 PM CDT

Women, you're just going to have to abandoned these attempts to try and convince men to still be attracted to you as you gain more weight. The more fat you gain, the less attention and attraction you are going to draw from men. It's just a fact, don't let anyone tell you differently. Our attraction circuity is out of our control. It's designed by evolution. So you are fighting a losing battle to try and convince us that we should be just as attracted to "plus" sized women as we are of women who are genetically fit.

Vote up!

Vote down!

-7

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 1, 09 3:36 PM CDT

Reasonator, your definition of 'genetically fit' needs to be fleshed out a bit. Fat is a selectred for advantage in certain climates; where food may be scarce or its distribution inconsistent, etc. In a culture of excess, such as our own, the taste for petite, chest bones showing women is just an exhibition of how little we are in want as a society. In poor countries having a stocky wife is prestigious; making a husband proud as it shows he is a provider. You should examine your dogmatism to believe that the lean look is so OBVIOUSLY the desirable one as determined by our genetics. It is not a preference based in geneology as you suggest. It's strictly cultural, and the cultures that lionize it are not particularly the mature, grounded or sophisticated ones. They're the privileged and arrogant ones that think that what they do is what is 'normal' and everybody else is eccentric or 'exotic' for preferring differently.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+7

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 4:10 PM CDT

OK, Bambi, let me 'flesh' it out a bit more. Very skinny women, with bones showing, are also not attractive, for the reasons of genetic fitness, in the same way that obese women are not attractive. If you take a women considered "slender" by our standards, she will be considered well fed in cultures that suffer from famines and scarce food. Women who are "plus sized" here will not be considered healthy and attractive to cultures that have little food, they will be considered excessively large. Present a "plus sized" woman and a slender woman (by Western standards) to a group of men in a poor country that has scarce food, and they will say the slender woman is more attractive, and still well fed.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 4:13 PM CDT

Also, I should point out that it is you who strangely thinks the "lean" look in Western society also looks lean to people who are really starving. That sounds pretty privileged and arrogant to me.

Vote up!

Vote down!

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 1, 09 4:50 PM CDT

First of all, I appreciate you attempt to defend an idea that seems less than PC. I too share your enthusiasm for the underdog politically point-of-view. However, I think you're 'attacking the straw man' here with examples that are extreme and obfuscating. Unhealthy specimens at either end of the spectrum should be unattractive from a genetic standpoint, as they would seem fairly unfit for reproduction in their condition. We're talking about the healthful range from petite to plus size, neither obese nor emaciated. If you are a fan of the arts of any culture within the last ten millennia or so, you will see that the so called 'plus-size' woman, until for the last 80 measly years or so (and only on-and-off during that time), has been the standard for beauty. The lean woman was regarded as 'boyish', lacking 'the goods' to be of interest to men. All I'm saying is that the science, as well as the cultural anthropology shows that the genetic argument about men's preferences supports plus-size women, the fashion, however, may be reverse for some decades in certain places for various cultural reasons. Your argument was that men genetically prefer 'fit' women, and by this I assume you mean the bathing-suit model type (correct me if I'm mistaken), but the multi-millennia of evidence doesn't support that position. What I really said above, as I've said before, is not about what most men like, it's about what 'real' men like. I'm telling women that if men don't like a little cellulite on their woman's backside, even though every real woman has it in some degree, then they might not have evolved out of their attraction to grade-school girls (or boys, for that matter). I'm telling women, "it's a red flag" when a man has such media-cuckoo standards. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Do we really disagree, reasonator?

Vote up!

Vote down!

+3

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 5:12 PM CDT

Yes, we do disagree. The 'real' men you speak of are IMO most likely chumps who want to say the things that they think their women want to hear. So they say, "Oh yeah. I love that cellulite on your thighs." They are not 'real' men at all. They are equivocating people-pleasers who don't know how to be honest with themselves or with others. BTW, I make 'real' connections with women, and they like the fact that I am not a con artist.

Vote up!

Vote down!

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 1, 09 6:47 PM CDT

Reasonator, thanks for hanging in there and making the 'man's' view clear. I see that you equivocate my notion of 'real' man. You think I mean "no bullshit man", the antithesis of a con-artist. Well, I hadn't even thought about the con-artist type, because frankly, they're off my map, as they've never gotten anywhere with me. YOUR continuum seems to be between the "I tell it like it is" man, and the "I will con you and pretend it's how you want it to be". That just reveals the shallowness of your fraternity. their all immature sexually, and some are honest about it and other are not. Well, envision a grade of man that is not immature sexually, and you may visualize a much better life. By 'real' man I mean the difference between a man whose values have matured vs. those that look at adulthood as the chance to finally get what they always wanted as a boy. Real men have left behind the simple-mindedness of what was idealized in boyhood and have continued to evolve on parallel with the woman that are aging with them. To them, young girls are boring in no time, and their forms are unripe. Real men are independent thinkers that aren't controlled by by the opinions and approval of their posse. In fact, they have 'friends' of diverse kinds, not a posse that reinforces their parochial values.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 9:58 PM CDT

I realize you weren’t talking about a ‘no-bullshit’ man when you were talking about your ideal of a ‘real’ man. My point was that if your ‘real’ man turned out to be a bull-shitter, then would he really be the ‘real’ man you thought he was? Any man who tells you that a woman with excess fat is as attractive physically as a woman with a model’s body, then he is bullshitting both himself and you. Now, I think there are a lot of “plus-sized” women who are plenty attractive, and I’ve been with a few. But, they would be even more attractive if they were to get into better (healthier) shape. Men who deny that are just lying to you. Let’s compare and contrast what you say is a real man, and what I say is a real man. You: A real man isn’t immature sexually (I guess you mean by this a man who tells you he only wants sex with you and doesn’t want sex with any other woman). Me: A man who denies or represses his sexual desires is the truly immature man. A real man understands we are sexual beings and has no problem enjoying it (responsibly). He is also honest about this with others. You: A real man has left behind the ‘simple-mindedness’ of what was idealized in boyhood and his desires have become parallel to the woman who is aging with him. Me: A real man understands there is no reason to pay for sex with lies about love or pledges of commitment. A ‘real’ man wants a ‘real’ woman who has no qualms about enjoying sex with him for no other payment than that he is who he is -- no contractual relationship agreements needed. It is only the immature men who make lying pledges of love and commitment in order to secure sex. The problem many women have is that they get suckered in by these con-artists, and don’t realize how really immature that man is until later in life, then comes the divorce. A real man is capable of commitment, sure, and he will commit with a woman to bear and raise a child if they both so choose. But that commitment will be an honest and open one. A real man understands that women have a primal need for security in relationships, and knowing this he pledges not to manipulate that desire in women in order to get sex (far more men do this than you realize). You: Real men are independent thinkers and are controlled by the approval of others. Me: You got this one exactly right. Ask yourself if the views I’ve presented here are views that I hold because I want the approval of the majority. You: Real men have friends of diverse kinds. Me: Again, you are right on this one. And I do. And I don’t need anyone to reinforce my views, because I know they are right, and they offer a better system for true relationships than does the traditional model, which is built on game-playing and manipulation.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 10:22 PM CDT

Quick correction: You said real men are NOT controlled by the approval of others. And I agreed with you. Also, when I spoke of "model's" body, I was not talking about nothing but bones. I just mean slender but healthy.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

Kookey90
Sep 1, 09 11:05 PM CDT

I don't like skinny women because when you squeeze them you can feel the bones crunch.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

bewilderbeast
Sep 2, 09 9:53 AM CDT

Wide-angle lenses used in the photo-shoot, I take it?

Vote up!

Vote down!

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 2, 09 12:57 PM CDT

Thank you bewilderbeast for the comedy relief, and thanks for the support, kookey90. There are many like you that reasonator, in his myopic world with only the media to support his fantasy, thinks are only liars. Dare I say, kookey90, you are in the silent majority? (Along with my brother, one of my sources of intimate knowledge about this phenomenon). Alright, reasonator. First, fashion likes skinny because they make better mannequins for diverse clothing. Larger women are limited as to what kind of outfits they can wear. Women with larger than B cups and/or a belly-dancer's hips have to cut out about 2/3 of otherwise appealing styles (larger than C cups is even worse) because they just don't work on a woman that has a classical woman's shape. The contemporary fashion world started roughly with Paul Poiret (C.F.Worth notwithstanding) in France just over 100 years ago. Do you think it a mere coincidence that with the full-scale promotion of clothing styles through mannequins by the early 1920's, we had perhaps the world's first-ever vogue for flat chested skinny girls with the flapper of the 1920's? It had EVERYTHING to do with the marketing of clothes. The marketing, intending to promote the clothes, inadvertently glamorized the slender woman in its process. It's a temporary reversal of biological norm that you (and many others) are mired in. The ephemeral taste is yours, the taste defensible by arguing its deepseededness in biology is otherwise. The power of glamour does not actually override the biology, but rather offers a conflicting urge that is also biological. Such paradoxes of instinct are called 'emerged properties' in Darwinian biology. On one front, we have our 'hard wiring' for some type of sexual opposite, and on another front, we have social wiring that provides an impulse that we should, for the sake of survival benefitting social networking, seek to maintain status and connection in our social milieu. Where there are 'trends' in our community, to be too aloof to them is to risk losing one's social connection, and thus the survival advantage of such associations. This latter concern is even more immediate to survival, as for so many thousands of years, the social network was (and still is) more vital on a case by case basis for individual survival than was gravitation to more, rather than less fertile-looking women, for example. As such, we have a guy like you confusing the socially-influenced biological reversal for the deep biological program. Let me clarify some misconceptions from your last post: 1. I do not equate monogamy with 'maturity' of sexuality. It is not what I meant. By maturity of sexuality, I meant only the maturity of one's erotic pallette. I consider the pallette mature when woman is 'understood' and found erotic as she is, rather than when woman is 'objectified' and found erotic only in certain positions/angles or with particular trappings of canned erotica, such as stilettos, lingerie, etc., Monogamy is...

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

jagerhans
Sep 2, 09 1:26 PM CDT

they also try harder in bed. yes once one of my gf's was just like that. as nasty in bed as she could be. she made me things i'll never talk about. the problem was, she also did with a brigade of other clueless idiots like me. then we all found out, became friends, formed a club to kill the whore but she vanished to start over in another place!

Vote up!

Vote down!

-1

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 2, 09 2:26 PM CDT

let me clear a couple misconceptions, and I'm not how they developed. First, I never said flat-chested women are more attracted than women with curves and C+ sizes. Second, and related, I am not talking about waifs. I clearly said in an earlier post I don't want a girl who is nothing but skin and bones, and that also is controlled by evolutionary psychology in attraction. Let's take the example of the model in question, Lizzi Miller. Looking at the now-famous photo of her, I think she's damn hot looking and near perfect, except for that bulge of fat on her belly. My point is, she would be more attractive if her stomach was flat, and everything else was the same. Curves are nice. But extra, unneeded fat (unneeded in terms of health and survival) is unattractive for most men. And that attraction is largely not controlled by social conventions, but is largely controlled by evolution.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 2, 09 2:40 PM CDT

...(monogamy is) largely a (reasonable) security 'arrangement' to be made by couples interested in raising children. Monogamy for couples not interested in children is generally a balm for their emotional insecurity, and I do not glorify that as you seem to think. It either comes naturally to both genders as a consequence of real love, or it doesn't. It should never be the result of 'dealmaking' or enforcement, for that flies in the face of cultivating the authentic love required for monogamy to incubate genuinely (for men). Your stereotype about women and their predisposition toward monogamy is not unreasonable, however, the reason is not due to women as emotionally weak and feeble, but rather to the fact that sexuality and emotion are biologically connected for them. This is probably because they can only have one child per nine months, so the female wiring prescribes a woman's maintenance of emotional connection to the product (and male provider) of sexual union. Men can potentially make a child every 15 minutes as long as the fertile women are being rotated fast enough, so their sexuality has been allowed to remain more primitive, i.e., compartmentalized, more independent of their emotional center (to a point), closer to the primordial mating proclivities we see in insects and amoeba. When an 'emotionally mature' man falls in love, he gains access to the more evolved nexus between emotion and sex that is already indigenous to women. Women, that is why you don't want to rush a man into monogamy. If you try to get through that door before the paint is dry, it will not dry right, and your man may always have a hungry eye and unsettled ways like reasonator. Also, I don't agree with you that the man who denies or represses his desires is not the mature man. I think your terms are wheedling, for what you call 'denial' and 'repression' could easily be cast as restraint and maturity's hallmark: a willingness to delay gratification for more meaningful experience later on. I take issue with your statements: "A real man understands there is no reason to pay for sex with lies about love or pledges of commitment." Here you are still mired in your bifurcated dichotomy of the con-artist versus the (depressing) realist. There are more types of men than those two. You and I do not disagree about the 'no contractual relationship' obligation, but you need to get off this simpleminded trip and get with some real men in your fraternal circle. The world is bigger than these choices you provide. Regarding this last bit: "Ask yourself if the views I've presented here are views that I hold because I want the approval of the majority." I think your views are mealy mouthed and self-serving. I get that the achilles need for approval you seek. The reason you are all over this blog is due to your knowledge that you offer an arrangement to women knowing it will not make them happy, but you tempt them anyway, and aspire to cleanse the bad karma from yourself over...

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

Bambi
Sep 2, 09 2:49 PM CDT

...(bad karma from yourself) over this by creating a pseudo-intellectual justification that it's all in the interest of 'honesty', which you assume granted that everyone thinks a virtue. Your sexual exploitation of women is rationalized by your argument that yours is the refreshing honest approach, as opposed to the con-artist's approach. Of course it is not to your advantage to concede that there is anything but the exploiting 'honest' guy and the exploiting con-artist, because you want to exploit from the position of moral authority. You're like the guy who 'bought' Manhattan for $24 saying later, "I couldn've gotten it for $12, but I need to be able to sleep at night!" Well, reasonator, it's been a pleasure, but you just can't exploit women and expect a woman to give you an ethical medal of merit for it. I'm sure that in some way you're a better man than your confreres that are less philosophical about the exploitation of women, but at least they're honest enough not to try to create rationalizations for doing so.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 2, 09 3:12 PM CDT

Hmm, I have a lot to respond to. And I will get to it later as I have time (I'm at work right now). But let me quickly respond to your last statement. It's not just my sexual "exploitation" of the woman I sleep with, it's also her sexual exploitation of me. It takes two, remember, and we are both consenting adults. You carry on this broken notion that it's all the man's doing when sex occurs, that somehow I've forced her to enjoy sex. My philosophy does not actually make women unhappy, as you say. In reality, for the women who get it, it liberates them from the oppression of the conventions of society (and their mothers) that tell them to suppress their sexual desire and only offer it up to men who agree to commit to some kind of monogamous relationship, thus making their sex a commodity to be traded, instead of simply offering it freely to men for no other reason than that they like them. My philosophy liberates women from their prehistorical and premodern desire for security in a relationship with a man, and it teaches them that they can generate their own security on their own with no man needed. Thus, it frees them to pursue true love for true reasons without the vain desire for security in a relationship, and also teaches them not to use sex as a commodity. So for the women who get this, it should make them happy.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 2, 09 3:21 PM CDT

For our differences in opinion, it's been a fun conversation to have. If you want to continue it, I will over e-mail. Now, just to figure out how to tell you my e-mail without the world knowing it also.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

| 0 minutes ago

paul123
Sep 1, 09 10:32 AM CDT

Those women pictured aren't "plus" sized, but they are still damn sexy. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+6

| 0 minutes ago

Citrixguy
Sep 1, 09 10:39 AM CDT

Good. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

-2

| 0 minutes ago

kadyanne
Sep 1, 09 10:48 AM CDT

This is so exciting -- to see real-sized women portrayed in a glamorous, sexy way Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+3

| 0 minutes ago

polstroad
Sep 1, 09 10:57 AM CDT

If a bit heavy is where the market is, then that is the sort of model to be used...money rules. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

| 0 minutes ago

MrsK
Sep 1, 09 11:03 AM CDT

Oh please. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

-5

IN RESPONSE:

Vesper
Sep 1, 09 4:13 PM CDT

Oh please explain yourself.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

| 0 minutes ago

odowd80
Sep 1, 09 11:23 AM CDT

Why do we have to chose only one size model? If she's healthy and beautiful, she should get work as top-notch model. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+6

| 0 minutes ago

Mad
Sep 1, 09 11:49 AM CDT

I simply adore SSBBW. My future wife will weigh more than me, and I'm #330 Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

| 0 minutes ago

dontlikeyou
Sep 1, 09 11:57 AM CDT

It's amazing that Glamour considers Lizzi a plus sized woman. I consider her a very average sized woman. It just goes to show that Glamour still doesn't understand reality there on Madison Ave. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

pilotman
Sep 1, 09 12:14 PM CDT

I agree, she is not really 'plus-sized'. I dont like the idea of making it seem as though being fat and still sexy is the 'in' thing to do. I mean i do realize that models are almost impossible to mock in reference to size and looks... but i think there has to be a line drawn as to not allow women and men alike to think being overweight or out of shape is the accepted norm. You do that, and health standards are going to drop further than they currently stand. Uh oh, i know the negative thumbs are gonna flow.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 2:30 PM CDT

She's "plus-sized" in relation to model standards, sillies.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

flame821
Sep 2, 09 8:18 PM CDT

Most Glamour Models are a size 0 to size 3. What fashion considers a plus size model is anything above a 4 up into 6 to (at an outside stretch) 8. 10 and over are considered obese by their standards. Most of the 0 size models are 14-17 years old, btw. It always amuses me when a man points at a model and says "I'd like to **** that" and I know (from my own daughter's obsession with fashion) that that particular model is jailbait. Sometimes, when I'm feeling evil, I'll make sure the man who made such a comment is away of the age of the child he just expressed his carnal desire over.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

| 0 minutes ago

inky
Sep 1, 09 12:15 PM CDT

I had to look at the Lizzi Miller photo closer to convince myself I hadn't misread the item. She is decidedly not plus-sized, but very average. We still have a long way to go to fix our broken body images in this country. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

| 0 minutes ago

Rocket448
Sep 1, 09 1:19 PM CDT

TV has a lot to do with the way we think about women and their bodies. Only a few shows spotlight average-looking women and allow them to have realistic sexual relationships. The models described in the story aren't plus-sized at all, they're right-sized -- and very attractive in my opinion. The mass media have seduced all of us with an unrealistic image of beauty and sexuality; its sometimes hard to find any images of women who resemble those I see everyday...and the women I see every day are complete women with real lives and real sexuality. I can only hope that we'll see more of that sort of woman in magazines and on TV, but I doubt it. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 2:38 PM CDT

It's not the mass media that have "seduced" men and caused us to be attracted to a certain type of woman. Read some books on evolutionary psychology. Men are attracted to women who have signs of genetic fitness and youth. It is the same across all cultures that have been thoroughly studied. These plus sized models are still reasonably attractive, but they would without a doubt be more attractive to the average male if they lost that extra fat. It's not about being male chauvinistic, it's about being honest -- honest with how evolution has wired our attraction circuitry. Don't give in to the PC peer pressure.

Vote up!

Vote down!

-3

| 0 minutes ago

inky
Sep 1, 09 3:23 PM CDT

I doubt that "without a doubt" they'd be more attractive. If evolutionary "science" were still in play, then how is it that large women in ancient times were considered beautiful, i.e., more genetically "fit" to propagate the species, and thin women were thought to be sickly and undesirable? Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 3:30 PM CDT

That's a myth Inky. Slimmer women been considered more attractive in most times and regions throughout human history, and it is certainly true in all the known regions of the world toady.

Vote up!

Vote down!

-2

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 3:41 PM CDT

And also, evolutionary science has always been and will always be "in play." Why would you even question that?

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

Vesper
Sep 1, 09 4:08 PM CDT

Evolutionary psych says men will be attracted to women who can successfully bear their children. This means broad hips and body fat (because it takes energy to create a human being inside you and then nurse it). Skinny is a sign that the woman does NOT have the resources to raise a child, whether genetic or environmental. Evolutionary psych points men AWAY from skinny!!! You have it ass-backwards, reasonator!!!

Vote up!

Vote down!

+4

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 4:24 PM CDT

Vesper: Depends on what you mean by "skinny." What you and I consider slim in Western standards is actually very healthy and well fed, with plenty of biological resources to bear a healthy child. You're the one with a distorted view if you think slim girls in Western society are actually unhealthily skinny. Evolutionary Psychology does point men away from those kind of skinny girls, who really are starving and really don't have enough food, and have bulging eyes and bones sticking out. Yes, that's also not attractive, and it's also governed by our desire to find women who are healthy and have good genetic fitness. Women who are "plus sized" by Western standards are simply excessively fat by societies that are actually starving, and they are privileged and don't know it.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

circuitries
Sep 1, 09 9:56 PM CDT

Have you ever checked out classic art? You know, the Greeks, the great Renaissance artists? Those girls would be considered pretty chubby by today's standards, not to mention the truly ancient fertility goddess sculptures.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

reasonator
Sep 1, 09 10:04 PM CDT

Hi circuitries: I have checked them out. But you have to realize the people with more than their fair share of food and resources were the elite upperclass. And those were the same people who the artists would bother to make paintings of. Having the extra fat was a sign of having more resources, sure. But it does not necessarily mean that all the men at that time were more attractive to the chubby women than they were to the more slender, yet still healthy, women. Remove the class system and you see that the idea of a chubby woman being the ideal of beauty is thrown out the window.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

circuitries
Sep 1, 09 10:35 PM CDT

You could say the same thing about the modern day, though; now, it's harder to maintain a lithe figure. The poor are now the ones who tend to be overweight, while the rich can pay for the personal trainers and the latest trendy diet foods and all that. It used to take a team of expert cooks to keep kings fat; it was a symbol of status. Now it takes a team of diet specialists and fitness trainers to keep celebrities in the shape they're in; it's a status symbol. There are evolutionary aspects, such as the hip-waist ratio because of its connection with fertility, but the weight range that is considered most attractive is largely dictated by culture.

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

IN RESPONSE:

Vesper
Sep 2, 09 12:57 AM CDT

No, reasonator, that is NOT CORRECT. A fact, which I take to be undisputed: All else being equal, the woman with the larger hips and the fatter body will breed more successfully than the smaller, thinner woman (to put it crudely). (Let's rule out extremes of morbid obesity and thinness, which are obviously both undesirable). Evolutionary psych says the better breeder will be more attractive. It's a RELATIVE issue, not an absolute issue--which one is MORE attractive, not 'are they both attractive'. It doesn't matter that the skinny woman can reproduce; it matters that she is LESS reproductively fit than the larger woman. Men will be more attracted to the woman who maximizes his reproductive success, if you believe evolutionary psych. And the woman with more meat on her bones and broader hips can produce larger, healthier babies; she can sustain herself and her child better through famine, and she is indicating, through her larger size, either greater food-processing efficiency or better food-finding skill. Either way, she WINS, relative to the thinner woman. It's about COMPETITION, and competition is a RELATIVE issue. It doesn't matter that you scored ten runs if the competition scores twenty! You lose! Nutrients are a limiting resource, and the larger woman is clearly demonstrating her superiority in obtaining and using nutrients. All else being equal, the men who choose the thinner women are at a reproductive disadvantage, so the larger woman will be more attractive. And not surprisingly, for most men, she is! Even today! "Plus-size women" should be HAPPY; they have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution working in their favor! Ignore the media images and the misogynists, and pay attention to how normal, well-adjusted men respond to larger women. You'll find that bigger women do just fine, thank you.

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

IN RESPONSE:

flame821
Sep 2, 09 8:24 PM CDT

Wow, trying to justify your own desires much? And Inky is quite right. Look at the paintings by the masters, look at the prehistoric stone figures and cave paintings. Women with large breasts and childbearing hips have always been the preferred model. (although I'll give you the youth part, that has always been part of the equation) However flat chested, straight hipped children never got much play as sexual objects of desire until the the past few decades. And, Reasonator, I'm not sure that you understand this. we are talking about MODELS (ie, size 0-3) I'm thinking (hoping) you're referring to normal woman (size 6-12)

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

| 0 minutes ago

Derni
Sep 1, 09 7:03 PM CDT

i LOVE PLUS SIZE NUDITY AND ..JUST LIKE EUROPEAN ART HOT-a woman with Meat on her bones -uumm yes Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+4

| 0 minutes ago

fancygapva
Sep 1, 09 9:55 PM CDT

Marilyn Monroe was a 14. That's a plus these days? Plus sized clothing for women starts at 16 or 18 but runs larger than a regular 16 or 18. Does that make a 6 or a 4 a minus size? Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

IN RESPONSE:

circuitries
Sep 1, 09 10:01 PM CDT

A size 14 back then was not what a size 14 is today. Still, Marilyn Monroe's size did fluctuate and she would be considered chubby by today's standards (see: http://tinyurl.com/l5cdgh ).

Vote up!

Vote down!

+1

| 0 minutes ago

oldgoat
Sep 2, 09 3:12 AM CDT

Resonator since we're not a third world country I could care less about what they consider attractive. I do care that these skin and bone models they normally use aren't using a healthy diet or methods to keep their figure, or what little there is. They also are sending the wrong message to women and girls that yuo have to be skin and bones to be attractive which can leader to bulmenia. These plus sized women to me are more representative of what the real world is here and they can be attractive. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+3

| 0 minutes ago

pg13
Sep 2, 09 5:49 AM CDT

She weighs 180 now, at age 21? I bet she crosses over 200 within a couple of years. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

-1

| 0 minutes ago

prowlerzee
Sep 2, 09 9:43 AM CDT

I think this is fantastic of Glamor, except for the nudity. I like the magazines for their fashion...and I love the dress in Newser's picture #3!!! Interesting Newser commentary, for a change! Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

| 0 minutes ago

Leners
Sep 2, 09 10:15 AM CDT

pg13, she is also 5'11'' - much taller than many girls Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+2

| 0 minutes ago

westonism
Sep 2, 09 1:03 PM CDT

This may be the first time in human history where looking like a famine survivor is considered attractive. Why would you want to be in a relationship with someone who had such a screwed up image of themselves ? If you don't love yourself, you can't really love someone else. Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

+3

| 0 minutes ago

catrina
Oct 3, 09 12:33 AM CDT

Please go get the November issue of Glamour magazine! There is a beautiful picture of 7 plus size models nude. Legendary super model Beverly Johnson's daughter Anansa Sims is featured in the picture. She is a size 12-14 and gorgeous! Her mother blazed trails in the 70's as the first African American on the cover of Vogue and now her daughter is blazing a new trail representing normal size women! Bravo!! Reply

Vote up!

Vote down!

0

| 0 minutes ago

View all 54 comments »

LEAVE A
COMMENT Comment Policy

Facebook Connect

Post this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

New York Post (Source Grid »)

Media • Gossip

Follow @NewserMedia on Twitter

entertainment • weight • model • body image • Glamour magazine • fashion industry • women's issues • models • Lizzi Miller

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

PopEater.com

Robin Thicke Has Baby Names All Picked Out
(2 hours, 52 minutes ago)
Sexual Hijinks Abound in Adam Lambert AMAs Performance
(3 hours, 8 minutes ago)
Steve Perry Talks About 'Believin'' on 'Glee,' 'Sopranos'
(3 hours, 30 minutes ago)
Rihanna, Gaga Show Lots of Skin at AMAs
(4 hours, 22 minutes ago)

Fark.com

If you're going to hide a sex offender at your...
(27 minutes ago)
Budget cuts, office closures, and staff reductions may mean that...
(34 minutes ago)
Not news: Transit police officer forces passenger's head into a...
(40 minutes ago)
The coolest CG portraits you'll see today [Cool]
(48 minutes ago)

CinemaBlend.com

Clark and Ellen Griswold To Return In Super Bowl Ad
(1 hour, 27 minutes ago)
Kull Getting a Sorbo Free Reboot
(2 hours, 15 minutes ago)
Victoria Beckham Says No To Madagascar 3
(11 hours, 10 minutes ago)
Mel Gibson Denies Role in Mad Max: Fury Road
(Nov 22, 09 11:52 PM CST)

Associated Press

Libya's Gadhafi tries to convert 200 young Italian women, paid by modeling...
(Nov 16, 09 2:33 PM CST)
Using 3-D modeling, Dartmouth computer scientist says infamous photo of JFK...
(Nov 5, 09 8:49 PM CST)
How fat am I? GOP governor candidate in NJ jokes about own weight after issue...
(Oct 29, 09 5:47 PM CDT)
Islanders captain Weight back in lineup after bout with swine flu
(Oct 28, 09 7:34 PM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

© 2009 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved.