Cosmo Gives a Voice to Curvy Gals; Now Let’s See Them!

I stumbled upon an excellent online article by Anna Breslaw, sex editor of Cosmopolitan, about the realities of being a fat woman. For “What Being a Fat Woman is Really Like,” Breslaw interviewed two women (referred to Woman A and Woman B) who proudly call themselves “fat”. Both women candidly discuss dating, sex, how they handle negativity, and health. I found myself nodding along with many of their statements, especially when Breslaw asks how they feel about other women complaining about their bodies:

“I hate it. I always notice it, and it feels like shit. I was at the salon yesterday and a woman was complaining about getting “so fat” at her waitressing job and she was literally half my size. It made me feel like shit, and I felt bad for her, too. Stop thinking about yourself in such shitty, negative ways! It’s so bad for you. Also, you’re not fat. Fat is just a descriptor, and you don’t match that descriptor in any sense of the word. So stop.”

That’s a major pet peeve with me, too!

As much as I appreciated Cosmo including an article about curvy gal realities, why not include the women’s names? Photos? Perhaps the women preferred to be anonymous, but my feeling is, if they were proud of themselves, then show it!

Or- was it something else? Was Cosmo not ready to show off plus size “real” women?

I’m a subscriber to the magazine, and I enjoy the fashion, sex tips, and current issues. However, I challenge the editors of Cosmo (United States) to include PICTURES of curvier women. Maybe even women over 35! Going back over the past year’s covers, it looks like Jennifer Lopez is the only cover girl over 40. Let’s put money where the words are.

Cosmo holds an annual “Fun, Fearless, Female” award every year. I ask them to be fearless and include more plus size celebrities Rebel Wilson, Amber Riley, Queen Latifah, or Melissa McCarthy. We haven’t seen many curvy gals since Adele’s December 2011 cover.

article-1320253992910-0EA160C700000578-225499_466x627

Now, that would be truly fun and fearless.

IFB_SEAL_RED

 

Advertisements

Thick or Thin, Barbie Can’t Win

Recently, Cosmopolitan published an article regarding the possibility of a “plus size Barbie” doll to market to girls. Since the standard Barbie has come under scrutiny in the last few years for setting unrealistic beauty standards, this doll could be a way for girls to see another side of beauty. I am all for this idea, however…

Overall, the doll looks like Barbie, except she is thicker in the arms, legs, and has a wider waist. She does have a more realistic shape, and there are curves. But then her face has…three chins.

It’s not that the number of chins that bothers me. They just look completely out of proportion with the rest of the body. I am built much like this doll (as many women are), and there is no way we would have three chins! I am purely speculating here, but is this another message of one cannot be “beautiful” if we have a little extra? Why does this Barbie have a thicker, curvier shape and then her face is off balance?

This little controversy reminds me of the recent problems Target and H&M faced by using either pregnant or medium sized models to promote their plus size department. Even though both retailers have apologized for the advertisements and removed them, there is still a lingering feeling that retailers, manufacturers, and designers still have a fear of “plus size.” Just like with our childhood friend Barbie, the views of what is “plus size” are still warped and not quite realistic.

The two "Barbies."

The two “Barbies.”