Wednesday, April 28, 2010

I came across an article this:

And then for contrast:

My thoughts:

1) The Lane Bryant model shown still represents the top 2% of the population for gorgeousness. What this comes out to is: including her in our standard of beauty doesn't necessarily make it more attainable--just different.

Still--she is the size, if not the shape, of the average American woman. So that's heartening.

2) Isn't it amazing how much sexier she is than the Victoria's Secret models? Since she has her own curves, she doesn't need all the camera effects and fanfare. Every time I see something like this I'm shocked with how much of a difference that makes; imagine, for instance, a full sized tinker-bell next to a real woman (say, Paris Hilton) wearing the same costume, and it becomes clear which is the more sexualized.

I think perhaps a skeletal standard of sexiness is a patriarchal way of integrating the virgin standard (alienated from one's body and especially one's sexuality) with the whore standard (sexually available).

3) Somebody made an edit to this and put it out on youtube. They replaced "meet Dan for lunch" on her phone with "the new Mcrib is back!" I actually like both versions. . . intentionally or not, this makes the point that a woman who is large can eat, and it's OK. Certainly she's not violating a beauty standard by doing so. Sensual enjoyment either way.


Day said...

Sorry about the poor embedding. . . I am tech fail. But charming tech fail, sometimes. I hope.

N said...

Why banned?

Trisha said...

I'd also like to know why the Lane Bryant one was banned.

Day said...

Apparently too racy for a time-slot where they showed victoria's secret commercials.