I read an article today asking which was better: "curvy" women or "super skinny" women. I don't think the article was entirely fair nor do I think it was entirely wise. First of all, there is a big difference between the descriptions "curvy" and "super skinny."
The article specifically targets this year's Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition which was released earlier in the week. I, for one, have always applauded SI for featuring healthy looking women of all backgrounds. Ok, the boobs are usually, ahem, "enhanced" (although Tyra swears hers are real) and I'm sure some photoshopping has been done. For the most part I think they highlight fairly normal, twenty-something women. I think back to when I was younger and "heroine chic" was so popular on the runways. SI never fed into that. Keep in mind, all of these swimsuits models are being photographed at the height of their career, they're at the top of their game and looking their absolute best. And, they are very young.
You can't possibly compare Kim Kardashian (who's anywhere from 5' 2" to 5' 3") to Brooklyn Decker (some reports have her at 5' 10", some at 5' 9") or Heidi Klum (5' 9 1/2") or Elle MacPherson (6'). It's comparing apples to oranges. Christina Hendricks, from Mad Men, is a paid actress. She's getting paid to act. Not model clothes or promote a product. Marissa Miller and all those other Victoria Secrets models are getting paid to wear clothes. Their body is their product. I'm still trying to figure out just what exactly the Kardashians are getting paid for. 
No comments:
Post a Comment