kickfight wrote:
If there is any "message" being sent by SI, it's that times have changed and the swimsuit edition will reflect those changes. It's not like the entire issue was transformed into some kind of alternate reality... it simply reflects more of reality now than it did before, after decades of depicting a highly-idealized form of reality anyway.

It's interesting to watch sitcoms from the 50's up until today. It's a great indicator of society and politics. They even have university courses on it.

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:
I choose to work with models that meet a certain criteria, this is very clearly marked on my page, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

Yet you decry the use of a plus size model by the SI photographers and editors for having done exactly the same thing that you've just stated that you do. That seems to have clearly have escaped you. I'm also willing to go out on limb and pretty much guarantee that Ms. Hunter has made far more money modeling in the past year than any of her detractors in this thread have on their own photography in the sane time frame.

Jules NYC wrote:
It's interesting to watch sitcoms from the 50's up until today. It's a great indicator of society and politics. They even have university courses on it.

Yup. A sophisticated observer of popular culture understands that idealized depictions of culture are not a legitimate reflection of that culture. They are most certainly not intended to be regarded as archetypes to be desired and emulated. But that's kinda what happened; people started adjusting their worldview to the idealized depiction rather than regarding it as just a formal "perfect world (for advertising purposes only)" version of reality, to be taken with more than just a grain of salt and the proper perspective. They frequently fell in love with the idealized depiction, and were frustrated whenever reality did not align with that depiction. That's basically narcissism-by-proxy: when the shimmering pool shows something perfect, that becomes adored and desired, while the world insists on reminding us "that's not an actual reflection of me! Stop rejecting reality in favor of an idealized representation of me!"  We're finally starting to untangle all that, and that's really all for the best.

kickfight wrote:

Yup. A sophisticated observer of popular culture understands that idealized depictions of culture are not a legitimate reflection of that culture. They are most certainly not intended to be regarded as archetypes to be desired and emulated. But that's kinda what happened; people started adjusting their worldview to the idealized depiction rather than regarding it as just a formal "perfect world (for advertising purposes only)" version of reality, to be taken with more than just a grain of salt and the proper perspective. They frequently fell in love with the idealized depiction, and were frustrated whenever reality did not align with that depiction. That's basically narcissism-by-proxy: when the shimmering pool shows something perfect, that becomes adored and desired, while the world insists on reminding us "that's not an actual reflection of me! Stop rejecting reality in favor of an idealized representation of me!"  We're finally starting to untangle all that, and that's really all for the best.

Ever see Rosanne? Mike & Molly? The Kings of Queens? Just normal people doing normal things. Not every show is an idealization of reality.
P.S. Melissa M. is doing quite well with movies & commercials these days but she lost her TV gig because she was losing too much weight.

I never got into Dynasty or 90210 yet I digress.

I think a sophisticated observer can appreciate how even non-idealized versions of sitcoms reflect a bit of present-day themes and attitudes of American culture.

If one doesn't have a strong identity, the media is a great influence, otherwise it's just arts & entertainment.
Speaking of, I can't believe this thread went on for a week. It's almost comical.

Jules NYC wrote:
Ever see Rosanne? Mike & Molly? The Kings of Queens? Just normal people doing normal things. Not every show is an idealization of reality.

One of the original manifestations of the modern sitcom ---The Honeymooners--- did the same thing decades before those shows, depicting a simulation of ordinary people in ordinary situations. And yet, aside from all being sitcoms, the other thing all these shows had in common is that in actual reality, nobody is truly as cleverly-snarky, funny, and endlessly-supportive as Alice Kramden or Carrie Heffernan or Dan Conner. How many people wished they could be married to someone like those characters, because they were so awesome?

Jules NYC wrote:
I think a sophisticated observer can appreciate how even non-idealized versions of sitcoms reflect a bit of present-day themes and attitudes of American culture.

Idealization takes many forms, even in sitcoms, and is never a truly accurate reflection of reality. Not even documentaries are a truly accurate reflection of reality.

Nat has a username wrote:
-BMI scale is BS -

BMI alone is a  valuable sign. No more, no less.
Heavy overweight or heavy underweight is an ailment.
Anorexia nervosa is a life threatening ailment with a lethality rate of ~15 percent and it is a quite quick killer.
(So if you put seven models suffering of anoraxia nervosa on a stage you can be aware that statistically one of these models will die of this illness within rather short time...)
Obesity is not such a quick killer. You can live for decades suffering of obesity. But you will encounter several ailments in the long run. Diabetes, severe cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke), orthopedic problems (knees, feet, hips). Besides this too much abdominal fat functions like a gland. It can disturb your hormone system and it is known for raising the risk of colon cancer up to 400 percent.

So it is a good idea to stay clear of anorexia as well as of obesity. And no - "10 pounds to much" are not obesity. But 50 pounds to much are not "just a little bit too much" as well.

TomFRohwer wrote:
BMI alone is a  valuable sign. No more, no less.
Heavy overweight or heavy underweight is an ailment.
Anorexia nervosa is a life threatening ailment with a lethality rate of ~15 percent and it is a quite quick killer.
(So if you put seven models suffering of anoraxia nervosa on a stage you can be aware that statistically one of these models will die of this illness within rather short time...)
Obesity is not such a quick killer. You can live for decades suffering of obesity. But you will encounter several ailments in the long run. Diabetes, severe cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, stroke), orthopedic problems (knees, feet, hips). Besides this too much abdominal fat functions like a gland. It can disturb your hormone system and it is known for raising the risk of colon cancer up to 400 percent.

So it is a good idea to stay clear of anorexia as well as of obesity. And no - "10 pounds to much" are not obesity. But 50 pounds to much are not "just a little bit too much" as well.

This.

I will add, 3 Ways to Tell Whether You're Fat (It's Not as Simple as You'd Think)

http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_rel … fat-or-not

Separate from what is turning into the new age of sexy, I don't think Hunter's waist is less than 35 inches.  I may be wrong, but it sure doesn't seem so.

TomFRohwer wrote:
BMI alone is a  valuable sign. No more, no less. ....

While BMI may not account for body build, etc., it is a very objective measure. As you said, if someone is 50 lbs or more overweight, that can't be written off as just being big boned.  That person is overweight.

The problem is, with such a large percent of the population overweight, to many, being overweight or even obese looks normal and what is an appropriate, healthy weight many now refer to as skinny or underweight.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
While BMI may not account for body build, etc., it is a very objective measure. As you said, if someone is 50 lbs or more overweight, that can't be written off as just being big boned.  That person is overweight.

The problem is, with such a large percent of the population overweight, to many, being overweight or even obese looks normal and what is an appropriate, healthy weight many now refer to as skinny or underweight.

I don't know about how useful BMI is. It takes almost no account into how people carry their weight, how its proportioned, nor factor in any muscle mass whatsoever. Like for me, I'm 5'4", 180 lbs & by the NIH's calculations, I'm obese.

Yet strangely enough, I can bench press 120% of my own body weight, 12 times, on set number 5 as well as still run a 5K in under 24 minutes.

Farenell Photography wrote:

I don't know about how useful BMI is. It takes almost no account into how people carry their weight, how its proportioned, nor factor in any muscle mass whatsoever. Like for me, I'm 5'4", 180 lbs & by the NIH's calculations, I'm obese.

Yet strangely enough, I can bench press 120% of my own body weight, 12 times, on set number 5 as well as still run a 5K in under 24 minutes.

BMI is useful when it comes to height to body weight.  It's not a useful determination of physical strength and not meant to be.

MichaelThompson wrote:
I think it's fantastic.  I like curvy women myself, so think it's a great idea.

That's very nice for you, but the model in question is not curvy, she's beyond curvy...way beyond!

KenBrandon wrote:
This forum is hilarious !

Plus sized models are becoming more and more the norm these days.

Remember, the modeling industry is really just advertising - models are really meant to sell something.
So SI is reflecting what the larger modeling industry is becoming....bigger and more curvaceous women like nice fashionable clothes - and swimsuits too.

All this talk about the "message" plus sized models are sending, aside from the skinny "Heroin Chic" models is laughable.
If the model is thin, shes unhealthy; if she's thick, shes unhealthy. - either way, the model can win in this argument.

Think what you want, but plus sized fashion is growing there are over a dozen stores that cater to just plus sized now.

I say, put their big curvy bodies in cute designer outfits and keep on selling....damn the "message".

Yes, plus sized is the new rage, the new 'norm'.

Is Fat The New Normal?

According to the CDC, two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. Now that the average body weight tends toward plump rather than svelte, the perception of what's normal may be sliding. And that may have health consequences that are flying under your radar.

P.S. Heroin Chic was never 'Chic'.  I don't know who started that movement but looking like a drug addict and glamorizing that lifestyle is disgusting.  Ever known a heroin addict?  You don't want to.

On that note, there are some people that are naturally slender and have no drug problems.

MarkGerrardPhotography wrote:
As I stated a couple of weeks ago, I have no problem shooting with plus size models.  However after 2 recent shoots, I have to wonder why some of these people are models.

Twice I have gone to significant expense to showcase the beauty of plus size models only for them to turn round and complain that they don't like the pictures.  I disagree with their self evaluation entirely however the photos won't be added to my portfolio because the models have requested that I not post them and I respect their wishes.

I won't waste my money with people like this in future.  If a plus size model wants to shoot with me, they cover my expenses up front and sign a separate model release stating that they agree that the images will be posted whether  they like it or not.  My model release already states that I can post the pictures without their seeing them but this will be a separate one.

If you are uncomfortable with your body, why be a model?

I don't have any problem with regular size models complaining about my photography so why do plus size models?

Treading lightly here, but...why are you assuming it has to do with their self esteem and not a genuine dislike of how the photos turned out? 

I've seen other photographers here shoot with some gorgeous models, yet produce unflattering shots of them.  Sometimes it's the pose, sometimes it's the lighting, and sometimes it's the expression.  I don't think it's uncommon for any model, regardless of size, to end up dissatisfied with the way a shoot turned out.

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:

Agreed, neither end of the spectrum is healthy or sends any kind of positive message to women in a world where they are already under extreme scrutiny.

your sensibility is seriously skewed if you think the SI model is on the end of the spectrum.

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:

Ok, so tell us what is the message in these pics?





What are SI and this er model saying?