# Simply Be 'Sexiest Curves' competition.......



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 17, 2007)

Ok, a little rant from me and please all let me know your thoughts because I am totally bewildered by it!

If your not from the Uk, or have never heard, Simply Be is a clothing catalogue that does a range of clothes for women of plus size. They go from a size 12-34ish. Not so long ago they ran a competition to find a model to represent what they represent. 

So anyway, this morning, I log on to look for a dress, and see a link entitled 'Winner of our Sexiest Curves competition'. Now I am not bitter, the girl is absolutely gorgeous but she is hardly curvy!!!! Then after looking at the winner, I took a looksy on the runnners up....again none of them any bigger then a size 10/12, 14 at the absolute maximum. 

So my rant is.......why on earth did they advertise such a competition making it seem like they wanted girls of real body shapes that use there catalogue. The average british woman is a size 16 and I dont feel that any of the girls whom got to the runner up/winner of the competition is representative of this at all. The judges of the competition obviously had an idea of what they wanted and to me, shouldnt have made it seem like they would consider anything because all the girls they have picked are jus so not curvy. Maybe they should have even picked a few girls who represented a few different body shapes, Im not jus saying they should have picked a fat girl for the sake of picking a fat girl but I am pretty sure that girls the size they have chosen probably shop in your regular high street stores and have no need to use a specialist chain!

I am just really annoyed that this catalogue talks about 'loving your curves' and 'accepting size' then being to chicken to actually represent women for what they really are.............

ok rant over.....here is the link if you wanna look!
http://simplybeuk.drct2u.com/page?pageId=1372
They are gorgeous girls....but curvy??? Hmmmmmmm what do you all think to this?


----------



## prickly (Dec 17, 2007)

.......the conditioning is just so deep-seated, even amongst those claiming to be liberated from it.


----------



## GWARrior (Dec 17, 2007)

Maybe they're werent a lot of bigger girls applying for the contest.

I mean, you can't pick a whats not there.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 17, 2007)

Models for average size clothing catalogues are typically sizes 0-4, even thought that isn't the average size of most of the customers. So it really is not different to have a model on the smallest end of the scale representing the whole customer base.

Keep in mind, these catalogues or stores exist for one reason, which is to sell clothing. They are not there to dictate what women should look like or to promote or destroy size acceptance. They are going to feature looks that zillions of dollars and zillions of years worth of sales and marketing research and trial and error have told them their customers respond to.


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 17, 2007)

I know in the end its all about marketing and selling, but its such a shame that they had the opportunity to really promote what they say but didnt use it. The way they advertised the competition I feel was wrong when they obviously had exactly what they wanted in mind........they simply should have put requirements up for what they were looking for instead of making it seem like every girl out there had a chance......its just a shame. Ive seen american websites that use much curvier girls to promote there clothes and that to me is so inspiring and makes me think...oh I can actually see how that wud look on the frame its targetted at!


----------



## Jes (Dec 17, 2007)

we've always heard (here in the US) that advertisers who try to use fat models for fat clothing don't make near the amount of sales as those who use thin models for fat clothing. Perhaps we, as a group of average fat shoppers, prefer looking at clothes on thin women and not clothes on women who look like we do. One can debate whethere this is true, or if it is, why it's true, but it's what I've heard many times. There's probably something to it. I think my sense of size is skewed--if I looked at models my size, I might be surprised with how clothes cling or hang. I don't hate myself, don't get me wrong, but I have no doubt that looking at a 3-D 'me' might well be jarring.

Anyway, the competition was 'sexiest curves,' not 'biggest curves,' and the judges clearly chose what they considered sexiest.


----------



## qwertyman173 (Dec 17, 2007)

Jes said:


> we've always heard (here in the US) that advertisers who try to use fat models for fat clothing don't make near the amount of sales as those who use thin models for fat clothing. Perhaps we, as a group of average fat shoppers, prefer looking at clothes on thin women and not clothes on women who look like we do.



I think that may be right. Most people look for clothes to make them look slimmer, and advertising plus size clothes with slim models helps that impression. Such a shame really.....


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Dec 17, 2007)

Well dont you know? You can't be sexy and model over size 16. :blink: When I was 15 I got signed to a modeling agency for plus size women. I was a size 18, and was told I needed to tone up and lose some weight. Yes.... I needed to lose weight to be a fat model. After doing a few jobs I quit.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Dec 17, 2007)

If you look at Simply Be's homepage, they offer clothes from *16* to 30. Now, I'm not brilliant at guessing women's dress sizes, but, the winners looks less than a size 16.

So, this means she is too small to actually model their clothes!! How does that make any sense? In my opinion, they should pick the middle of their range, say size 22-24, and recruit a model of that size. That way, it gives both larger and smaller women the best idea of how the clothes look. But hey, I'm not a fashion designer!

Mike


----------



## prickly (Dec 17, 2007)

........i've mentioned in other threads (yes, i know, how terribly clever of me) how women of all sizes seem to have skewed images of themselves. so no doubt that comes into the proven marketing. all part of the conditioning though (and i was very clever to mention that one a few posts back).


----------



## Jes (Dec 17, 2007)

prickly said:


> ........i've mentioned in other threads (yes, i know, how terribly clever of me) how women of all sizes seem to have skewed images of themselves. so no doubt that comes into the proven marketing. all part of the conditioning though (and i was very clever to mention that one a few posts back).



well bully for you, prickly, bully for you.


----------



## k1009 (Dec 17, 2007)

The main fat girl store here does this with a few models who might fit the smallest sizes on a good day and the rest who no doubt need to have their clothes pinned back just so they fit.

It annoys me but I figure, if girls who are a size 10-12 need women wearing a size 4 to model their clothes, why should fat girls be any different? I'm not saying it's a good situation either way but at least there's consistency.


----------



## Tooz (Dec 17, 2007)

BigCutieSasha said:


> I was a size 18, and was told I needed to tone up and lose some weight. Yes.... I needed to lose weight to be a fat model.



This statement is amazing. You should put it on a t-shirt and wear it everywhere.

I am so serious.


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 17, 2007)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> If you look at Simply Be's homepage, they offer clothes from *16* to 30. Now, I'm not brilliant at guessing women's dress sizes, but, the winners looks less than a size 16.
> 
> So, this means she is too small to actually model their clothes!! How does that make any sense? In my opinion, they should pick the middle of their range, say size 22-24, and recruit a model of that size. That way, it gives both larger and smaller women the best idea of how the clothes look. But hey, I'm not a fashion designer!
> 
> Mike


Well this is what I was a bit shocked about....she is a gorgeous gorgeous girl but not representative of what they are.....I understand everyones point on ere but its jus a real shame that it is the way it is!


----------



## Imp (Dec 17, 2007)

Coupla small things...

* The idea that the "average woman" is size 16 is a bad use of statistics. There's only so small you can be, yet theoretically there is no limit to how big you could be. This means the average is always skewed high.

A better stats are based on the MODE...that is, the size shared by the most woman...or the MEDIAN...that is, the size of the woman right in the middle. I think also these things should be talked about in terms of age, too. I'm sure there are more size 16 30yos than 20yos.

* Jon's prolly the most right on with his comment. The chosen model should prolly be able to model the clothes!

* Who cares! We--yes we!--are the enlightened ones.


----------



## Jes (Dec 17, 2007)

You know, OP (forgot the name, sorry!) I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more constructive to contact the organization responsible, if you haven't. Lots of people have said some smart things, and while I do think that advertisers do what sells. Period. What sells. Meaning, we're part of hte problem b/c of the ways in which we buy (or don't buy), they can still stand to hear opposing voices. If you haven't called or written, you should. I can tell you feel strongly about this issue. I really don't, to be honest, but those that do should call customer service or encourage others to do so. it's a good way of venting AND maybe changing a few minds.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Dec 17, 2007)

Thing is, models -- plus size and straight size -- have to wear clothing that is sampled from a designer, so if she can't fit the clothing, there is going to be a problem. Straight size models aren't there to be pretty, per se, they are there to model clothing...why should it be any different for plus size models? Until designers start making sample sizes in 20+ it will continue to be this way...


----------



## Scx (Dec 18, 2007)

I'm going to get totally swamped for this one, but I thought I should try.

I managed to wind up one day, even while not having a TV in the house, being subjected to a TV show of various plus-sized women being told they have a future in modeling. Um, those on this show didn't.

It's not just about the weight. If you want to be a model, you have to have the teeth, the hair, the eyes, the makeup and the posture and the practice and the sheer arrogance to put yourself out there as the best. Impractical though it may seem, it's not just about the figure.

These just didn't do it. Standing there, spine limp, hands at your sides, hair looking like a rat condo, just wouldn't cut it even if your figure was 'technically' perfect. No, there's more to modeling than the figure.

So there's my objection. While it is perfectly possible for a BBW to be a beautiful model, they often seem to think that just being a BBW is sufficient, like they think that being beautiful and slender is somehow sufficient to be a traditional model. 

It isn't. 

For each that succeed, tens of thousands fail.

_Scx_


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 18, 2007)

^^^

I don't think anyone here was saying, "Take just any old fat girl and throw her out on the catwalk. Who cares if her knuckles drag the ground when she walks and she constantly drools? We just want HUGELY fat!"

It has been shown that we respond better to a slimmer model. Ayup. No doubt. It's the norm. Until there's a conscious break from that norm and we actively seek _talented_ plus size models larger than a 14, fat acceptance is being held back.

But what do I know? Nothin' about nothin'.


----------



## Scx (Dec 18, 2007)

Looks like my post didn't go through:

In short, no, it has not been shown that average people prefer slimmer partners. It's a lot more about the hip/waist ratio.

And I dunno about you, but I like being way out here on the long tail of the bell curve.

_Scx_


----------



## love dubh (Dec 18, 2007)

The winner's kinda busted looking. 

To reiterate, it's true that fashion models are much smaller than the customers that purchase such clothing, or the imitations/alternatives thereof. Same thing for mannequins, which is what models are. Models and mannequins are size 0 thru 4-ish, for non-plus sized wear, while plus-sized mannequins appear a size 10. *I'm* a pluz-sized mannequin; I measured myself against one.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Dec 18, 2007)

Jes said:


> --if I looked at models my size, I might be surprised with how clothes cling or hang.



But that's exactly why I don't understand why they use models that are too thin. How are you supposed to know what the clothes will actually look like on a BBW?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 18, 2007)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> So anyway, this morning, I log on to look for a dress, and see a link entitled 'Winner of our Sexiest Curves competition'. Now I am not bitter, the girl is absolutely gorgeous but she is hardly curvy!!!! Then after looking at the winner, I took a looksy on the runnners up....again none of them any bigger then a size 10/12, 14 at the absolute maximum.
> 
> ok rant over.....here is the link if you wanna look!
> http://simplybeuk.drct2u.com/page?pageId=1372
> They are gorgeous girls....but curvy??? Hmmmmmmm what do you all think to this?



Actually, all of the models look to be more than a size 10-12 to me. They appear to be at least a 14, if not 16. I don't think anyone could possibly guess the size of the winner, as the only thing showing is a small portion of her upper body.


----------



## Jes (Dec 18, 2007)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> But that's exactly why I don't understand why they use models that are too thin. How are you supposed to know what the clothes will actually look like on a BBW?



you're not. I think that's the point. You're supposed to see them on the body that you want to have. 

Sort of like seeing the chair you're thinking of buying in the middle of that living room that you want, but that you'll never have (if only b/c it's a set that no one lives in).


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Dec 19, 2007)

A UK size 16 is US size 14. The winning models will all be UK size 14 - 16, but 6 feet tall. When you consider that the average size for a UK woman is UK 16, and the average height is about 5' 4", these models are still way slimmer than the average woman on the street. I remember Simply Be's first TV ad from a few yrs ago. They showed three models, one was a size 14, one a size 16 and one a size 18. All three were definitely slimmer than I EVER was at my slimmest adult size 12 (US 10). Anyway... yes I agree with the OP, they should have been clear about what they were looking for. Minimum height, maximum measurements etc, but they didn't, because they wanted to imply that it was open to anyone of any size, 16 or above. Stuff like that makes me want to not buy their products any more. I much prefer Evans and their competitions such as the one that Bexy one a few months ago! REAL bbw woman, looking fab and being photographed and treated to some gift vouchers, yay!


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm going to be catty here just for a moment....She ain't all that pretty. Maybe it's just the picture but in my opinion she's lacking the pretty. And if having a "womanly shape" means holding your shoulders back with your lady lumps thrust out well slap a padded bra on a size 2, call her a plus model and be done with it. I wonder how many size 20 contestants went home disappointed and maybe a bit hurt that their size was just _too_ womanly for the clothes that are intended for them in the first place.

*end cattiness*


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Dec 19, 2007)

NancyGirl74 said:


> I'm going to be catty here just for a moment....She ain't all that pretty. Maybe it's just the picture but in my opinion she's lacking the pretty. And if having a "womanly shape" means holding your shoulders back with your lady lumps thrust out well slap a padded bra on a size 2, call her a plus model and be done with it. I wonder how many size 20 contestants went home disappointed and maybe a bit hurt that their size was just _too_ womanly for the clothes that are intended for them in the first place.
> 
> *end cattiness*



Not catty at all, she put herself forward in a competition based on appearance, so it's fair game to comment. I don't think she is at all pretty either, there is some weird mouth thing going on and she looks like she's had a broom handle stuck up her back.


----------



## bexy (Dec 20, 2007)

Ruby Ripples said:


> I much prefer Evans and their competitions such as the one that Bexy one a few months ago! REAL bbw woman, looking fab and being photographed and treated to some gift vouchers, yay!


*
well i wasnt gonna mention it but since u did lol...


heres the pic for those who dont know and i am a size 24 and getting bigger due to quality street lol!! 

the bit that made me laugh on that simply be page was how she admires catherine zeta jones for her curves?! what curves, the curls in her hair??!?


meeeeeee!*


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 20, 2007)

bexylicious said:


> *
> well i wasnt gonna mention it but since u did lol...
> 
> 
> ...




You're hot :wubu:
and you're in school. :wubu:


----------



## bexy (Dec 21, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> You're hot :wubu:
> and you're in school. :wubu:


*
aww thank u! and yes i am in school, when i can get outta bed lol *


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 21, 2007)

BEXY! I LOVE LOVE LOVE THAT OUTFIT! Im a 24 too  so I know that if I go and copy that outfit of yours I'll hopefully look as fab? hehe thanks for the inspiration, I feel Evans went a bit rubbish over the summer but this autumn winter it has totally redeemed itself! You look fab on your pic! Well done you!


----------



## GWARrior (Dec 21, 2007)

Bexy you are such a doll! That picture is so smokin hot!!

Wanna be my idol? :wubu:


----------



## bexy (Dec 21, 2007)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> BEXY! I LOVE LOVE LOVE THAT OUTFIT! Im a 24 too  so I know that if I go and copy that outfit of yours I'll hopefully look as fab? hehe thanks for the inspiration, I feel Evans went a bit rubbish over the summer but this autumn winter it has totally redeemed itself! You look fab on your pic! Well done you!



*
aw thanks u huni, that dress is ages old now but some of the new stuff is so lovely, u just gotta catch it on a good day, same as new look its stuff is gettin nicer too!*




GWARrior said:


> Bexy you are such a doll! That picture is so smokin hot!!
> 
> Wanna be my idol? :wubu:


* awwk thanks! we should start a competition BBW IDOL lol
*


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 22, 2007)

bexylicious said:


> *
> aw thanks u huni, that dress is ages old now but some of the new stuff is so lovely, u just gotta catch it on a good day, same as new look its stuff is gettin nicer too!*
> 
> 
> ...


Ohhhhhhhhh yeah I know! Ive just bought a lovely pair of black jeans and a top covered in emo stars from New Look, the jeans are too long but will have to turn them up as usual, New Looks jeans are always too long for me......im only 5,3ish an they only seem to do 32" leg lengths in there Inspire!


----------



## DoctorBreen (Dec 22, 2007)

They don't have true BBWs, no.


----------



## bexy (Dec 22, 2007)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Ohhhhhhhhh yeah I know! Ive just bought a lovely pair of black jeans and a top covered in emo stars from New Look, the jeans are too long but will have to turn them up as usual, New Looks jeans are always too long for me......im only 5,3ish an they only seem to do 32" leg lengths in there Inspire!


*
ahh see im 6ft so 32 lenght suits me greatly! i got a lovely leopard print top in turquoise, a red graffitti t shirt and some me to you pjs!! its getting much better ! 

xo*


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Dec 24, 2007)

bexylicious said:


> *
> ahh see im 6ft so 32 lenght suits me greatly! i got a lovely leopard print top in turquoise, a red graffitti t shirt and some me to you pjs!! its getting much better !
> 
> xo*



you are 6 ft tall???


----------



## Shosh (Dec 24, 2007)

Wow Bexy. You are beautiful in that modelling pic.
Well done.
Susannah


----------



## bexy (Dec 24, 2007)

BigCutieSasha said:


> you are 6 ft tall???


*
indeed i am! taller than my boyfriend by 1 inch, bugs the life outta him....lol*


----------



## bexy (Dec 24, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Wow Bexy. You are beautiful in that modelling pic.
> Well done.
> Susannah




*thank u!! xo*


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 24, 2007)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> So my rant is.......why on earth did they advertise such a competition making it seem like they wanted girls of real body shapes that use there catalogue. The average british woman is a size 16 and I dont feel that any of the girls whom got to the runner up/winner of the competition is representative of this at all. The judges of the competition obviously had an idea of what they wanted and to me, shouldnt have made it seem like they would consider anything because all the girls they have picked are jus so not curvy.
> 
> I am just really annoyed that this catalogue talks about 'loving your curves' and 'accepting size' then being to chicken to actually represent women for what they really are.............
> 
> ...



There's sort of a rhetorical battle over what "curves" represent from a marketing standpoint. Curves are universally considered good nowadays, largely because of a modern trend toward larger hips which is very popular (despite the best efforts of Hollywood to ignore it and embrace flat-out anorexia). Skinny women with no hips were popular in the 1970s but nowadays are generally only admired by grey-haired old rich white men*. Most everyone else likes a curvacious figure, which to most people, means "some meat on her bones".

But grey-haired old rich white men own most of the companies that pay for commercial advertising, and they like skinny women. 

So skinny lovers try to redefine "curves" as *small waists and ankles. *

_* My apologies in advance to any grey-haired old rich white men whose feelings were hurt by the above post. With Political Correctness nowadays, you never know._


----------



## sweet&fat (Dec 24, 2007)

Hmm... those women are entirely average in size. Not that I'm surprised. A friend of mine works for Dove skincare, and she told me that back when they first started the commercial about having great curves and showing real women instead of models, many around her office referred to the ad as the "fatties in white." And I remember first seeing the ad and thinking how many of the curves just happened to be big boobs. She also says that when they do market research for their "age-defying" eye creams and such, the women who they test are consistently 40+, and they always tell them the model looks too old when they show a women who is actually their contemporary. They have no idea how old the model actually is, but it turns out that she has to be around 10 years younger before the women start saying they'll buy the product. Beauty can be a very pernicious thing.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Dec 24, 2007)

sweet&fat said:


> Hmm... those women are entirely average in size. Not that I'm surprised. A friend of mine works for Dove skincare, and she told me that back when they first started the commercial about having great curves and showing real women instead of models, many around her office referred to the ad as the "fatties in white." And I remember first seeing the ad and thinking how many of the curves just happened to be big boobs. She also says that when they do market research for their "age-defying" eye creams and such, the women who they test are consistently 40+, and they always tell them the model looks too old when they show a women who is actually their contemporary. They have no idea how old the model actually is, but it turns out that she has to be around 10 years younger before the women start saying they'll buy the product. Beauty can be a very pernicious thing.



Those women don't even look voluptuous or hippy to me, let alone "fatties in white". They are all fairly busty, though.


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 9, 2008)

Blue eyes, if I may boldly venture, having you as a model would improve their catologue x10


----------



## pinkylou (Nov 10, 2008)

Simply Be clothes are a weird old fit on me anyway, I dont think they ever use a proper big gal to test their clothing, Im forever sending stuff back lol!


----------



## bellyjelly (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, I've just voted with my wallet. Here's the letter I left at their 'Contact Us' page:

Dear Decision Making Cowards for the Sexiest Curves Competition,

SHAME ON YOU! How disappointing you choose women who appear to be able to buy their clothes from any high street retailer.

From now, I'll take my business elsewhere.

My gain, your loss!​


----------



## kioewen (Nov 11, 2008)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> It has been shown that we respond better to a slimmer model.


How ridiculous. "It has been shown." By whom? Where is this supposed proof?

Answer: it doesn't exist.

This is one of those colossal urban myths that are actually categorically false. The public parrots it because they heard it somewhere, but it has no basis in actuality.

The companies have NOT does any surveys or studies of this kind at all.

In fact, Dr. Helga Dittmar of the U of Sussex is the only person who did some actual experiments in this field, comparing the effectiveness of images of thinner vs. fuller models, and her studies showed that people responded perfectly well or _better_ to fuller figured models _as long as those models were attractive._

You can look up her articles (there were a series of three of them) in the Journal of Psychology, I believe.

That was actual PROOF.

These statements, "clothes sell better on thin models," are myths.

And why do they exist?

The photographers who shoot the campaigns, the ad directors who organize them, etc., THEY are the ones who prefer thinner models, so they echo these claims to support their biases, and as a convinient line to tell customer-service people to give to customer complaints.

But there is no actual measure in clothing sales, because, as I said, the companies have never done any empirical studies comparing thinner vs. fuller models in the first place.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 11, 2008)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Skinny women with no hips were popular in the 1970s but nowadays are generally only admired by grey-haired old rich white men.
> 
> But grey-haired old rich white men own most of the companies that pay for commercial advertising, and they like skinny women.[/B]



Pardon me, but what a load of misinformation.

Most fashion magazines are run by women, edited by women, the photographic content is controlled by women (and gay men). Women are imposing the skinny standard on themselves, so the "grey-haired old rich white men" bugaboo is about a half-century out of date.

Unless you happen to mean "grey-haired old rich white men" who are also gay.


----------



## PrettyKitty (Nov 11, 2008)

It's a shame that some people would find those models to be too fat.


----------



## runningman (Nov 12, 2008)

bellyjelly said:


> Well, I've just voted with my wallet. Here's the letter I left at their 'Contact Us' page:
> 
> Dear Decision Making Cowards for the Sexiest Curves Competition,
> 
> ...



Good for you. *cheers*


----------



## Red (Nov 12, 2008)

kioewen said:


> Pardon me, but what a load of misinformation.
> 
> Most fashion magazines are run by women, edited by women, the photographic content is controlled by women (and gay men). Women are imposing the skinny standard on themselves, so the "grey-haired old rich white men" bugaboo is about a half-century out of date.
> 
> Unless you happen to mean "grey-haired old rich white men" who are also gay.



Ok, apart from the fact that this thread is_ really_ old...don't you think you're generalising the fashion industry a bit with that gay comment? 



BellyJelly- Good on you for writing that letter.


----------



## fiore (Nov 12, 2008)

Well, I don't mind women smaller than me modeling my clothing. If I look at the picture and think that the outfit makes this girl look huge and weirdly proportioned, I know to stay away from it because it will be twice as bad on my body!


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 13, 2008)

Red said:


> Ok, apart from the fact that this thread is_ really_ old...



Its still relevant though, simply be catalogues boldly state 14-32 but when did u ever see one of their models look even close to 14, none of them even have bellies they are at best slightly plump. If the clothes look good on women in the 14-32 range why not show them on models in that range?
Check out this link http://www.simplybe.co.uk/shop/nav/show.action?LpgUid=11148647 the girls here are skinny there is no other word for it! 




kioewen said:


> Pardon me, but what a load of misinformation.
> 
> Most fashion magazines are run by women, edited by women, the photographic content is controlled by women (and gay men). Women are imposing the skinny standard on themselves,



I think this is the truth it is women who are imposing these standard, on Gok Wans show the other night a bunch of models asked people in the street which of two pictures the public preferred (a airbrushed skinny big boob version or a natural version of the same picture) the men went for the natural version and the women went for the faked version. 

To me this says that women are the ones enforcing the negative stereotype. It would be interesting to know if simply be is actually run or staffed by any big women or whether its all skinnies in charge of their marketing.


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Nov 13, 2008)

I think it was Simply Be that did a tv ad a couple of years ago, saying that the three models featured were sizes 14, 16 and 18. However... these women were also about six feet tall. Sooo.. that size 18 model was way slimmer than I was at 5' 3, and size 12-14 UK. If they really wanted to have some plausibility, they should have used a woman of average height, say 5' 5, and size 18. Or a 6 foot tall model of size 26, to give a better idea of their selling plus sized clothes. 

Had to comment on the belly comment made. At 200lbs I had a flat stomach, yet I was definitely fat. Some guys seem to have this weird notion that when a slim woman starts to gain weight, it will show first on her belly, I don't know why. Possibly due to sites such as Stuffer 31.


----------



## BHMforBBW (Nov 13, 2008)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Ok, a little rant from me and please all let me know your thoughts because I am totally bewildered by it!
> 
> If your not from the Uk, or have never heard, Simply Be is a clothing catalogue that does a range of clothes for women of plus size. They go from a size 12-34ish. Not so long ago they ran a competition to find a model to represent what they represent.
> 
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly with you Missy. In my eyes, and given what you said, most of Britain would view these ladies as average when it comes to curves. Where is the wonderful abundance of curves such as one may find in this community? Where is the exaggerated hourglass? The cornucopia of sensual goodness? The swells, the roundness, the generously bestowed softness? Some like youself for example?  Clearly - you'd make a marvelous model, even cover girl for this Company. Did you apply? 

Warm regards,
Marek


----------

