Last week, we reported on the minor sensation model Lizzi Miller became after posing in a g-string for one photo in Glamour Magazine. The photo was to illustrate an article about body image, and Lizzi’s size-12 figure was met with overwhelming support and encouragement. Lizzi and several editors from Glamour made the media rounds and got as much publicity from the incident as possible. In the initial “controversy” over -gasp- putting a size 12 model in the pages of Glamour, the editor in chief made the promise to America that Glamour Magazine would now be featuring more “plus-sized” or “larger” models in their pages. I thought at the time that it was a good idea, but something that would probably be forgotten.
I’m happy that I was wrong – Page Six is reporting that Glamour has already done one photo shoot for a future issue (probably the November issue, my guess) with an all “plus-sized” group of models:
GLAMOUR will feature a slew of large, nude models in the November issue. Insiders say Glamour readers responded so well to the photo of plus-size model Lizzie Miller, posing nude, on Page 194 of the September issue, the editors decided to do it again.
Miller, along with fellow full-figured femmes Kate Dillon, Jennie Runk, Amy Lemons, Crystal Renn, Ashley Graham and Anansa Sims, were photographed– in the buff — by Matthias Vriens Friday at Industria Superstudio on Washington Street.
[From Page Six]
Well… that’s great. I don’t mean to nitpick, though, but isn’t the idea to have larger models throughout the pages, not just jammed into one big photo shoot? I think people responded so positively to Lizzi’s photo in the September issue was because she was in the magazine interspersed with the standard size-zero models – it was true editorial diversity. Putting all of the working “larger” models into one photo shoot is great and all – but hopefully they could be used just for standard modeling gigs in magazine layouts.
I was at a fashion show and was shocked to realise that the models, though angular and obviously rail thin, looked amazing on the catwalk. On the catwalk, clothes need to hang – like on a hanger and so very thin models make sense. However, in a editorial piece in a women’s magazine like this one – it is refreshing to see a beautiful woman who is a normal, healthy size. Perhaps there is room for both: high fashion can have the bony, androgynous
aliens while magazines for woman should feature more realistic forms of beauty.
One more thing – this size 12 woman is not ‘fat’ but is lovely and curvy. I want to reclaim the word ‘curvy’ for women who are just that, not morbidly obese. There is nothing lovely about being obese and there IS a difference.
Oh, please, this woman is NOT plus sized! She’s gorgeous and healthy, but not plus sized. And if you consider that she’s 6′ tall and weighs, I think, 180 lbs., I doubt that she really wears even a size 12.
Geez Glamour. One nude larger woman is fine. I don’t need to see a dozen of them. I want to see them wearing clothes. Hello? Clothes?
I agree with posts 1 and 2. I would never see this woman on the street and think “there goes a big fatty”. Actually I wouldn’t think that about anyone, but there is absolutely nothing attractive about an obese body. This model looks the way a woman should look. Right in the mid-range of ideal weight with a BMI of probably around 23. So Glamour is still not using plus size women if this is their example of one.
It’s about time we see average women in this magazine that aren’t a size 0. That just isn’t normal. Average women come in all shapes and sizes. Hopefully, soon we will see petite women in the industry too.
Being tall helps spread it out a good bit. I’ve got some pudge and it’s okay because being longer makes you look leaner. The “plus” to being a normal sized woman is the fundamental and biological truth that exists…meat on your bones means butt and breasts. To both sexes, round fleshy, HEALTHY equals fertility which translates to sexy.
I’m 5’10” and 25, as an adult I’ve been everything from size four to fourteen. I’d like to see that in a magazine for real women and in times where print circulation is down. Fashion purists can keep Vogue and W, but the people who are in the business to make money need to wise up and listen to their readers. Sadly though, as long as normal sized 8 people are referred to as “plus” then there will always be a stigma.
She may not be fat, but she is most definitely plus sized. She’s 5 11 and 180 pounds, that’s plus sized. I’m making no reference to her health, she’s probably as healthy as a horse, but pretending she’s not heavy for her height is stupid. She’s only an inch taller than me, but 35 pounds heavier- and I ain’t skinny.
It’s so bizarre that the fashion world rushes from one extreme to another. It’s either women/girls who look like they’re one salad leaf away from passing out to “hey let’s do an all-obese photoshoot and get Beth Ditto to design clothes!”
As noted, most women fall happily in-between these two odd extremes and rarely is a woman the same weight all the time. We all gain and lose a bit here and there depending on our hormones, the holidays and HIM. It wouldn’t be “normal” to have only size zero models in a mag, nor to have only size 16. Why is this concept so hard for some to grasp??
Cue all the juvenile “Ew, gross, I expect models to be hotter than me!”s.
yeah ! – and most likely this lady is still hotter than all of them!
Gorgeous. Im not overweight and I see my body in hers. I had a smaller waist but her arms and legs and butt.. i see those in myself and Im suprised she’s considered big. I guess she probably has a large frame. Either way she’s really beautiful.
I wish these magazines could put a normal sized person in their pages and NOT shout it from the mountain top
“HELLOOOO!!! We put a picture of a fatty in here to make you feel better about yourself!!! Aren’t we the most progressive magazine out there?! We’re awesome!!!!”
Naomi, you say average women come in all shapes and sizes yet you exclude size zeros as not normal? Confusing.
Glamour is really trying to toot their own horn. From one extreme to the next, they go. How about not worrying about who is what size and rather who could sell this clothing item better?
Well, the fashion industry is bound to catch up sooner or later… whether you like it or not, this country is getting fat and it’s probably not going to change anytime soon… so just accept it and everything will be jussssssttt fine 🙂
great idea…but i bet they still photo-shop these girls too. So really, how is it anymore “normal”?
5’11 and 180 is technically in the “overweight” category for your BMI. That amounts to 25.1; when anything over 25 is considered overweight. That’s not me talking, but uh.. doctors.
She’s certainly not as big as a lot of people these days. On this week’s ‘Hung’ Anne Heche’s character was embarrassed to admit she’d become a size 4, which I was surprised no one griped about.
This whole debate is so bizarre. In Australian Cosmo, every (and I mean every, not just one-offs) issue has models from size 6 to size 16 (US 2-12), and has done for about five or six years now.
I don’t care if its a man or a woman, that stomach flab looks horrible on anyone.
Please go get the November issue of Glamour magazine! There is a beautiful picture of 7 plus size models nude. Legendary super model Beverly Johnson’s daughter Anansa Sims is featured in the picture. She is a size 12-14 and gorgeous! Her mother blazed trails in the 70’s as the first African American on the cover of Vogue and now her daughter is blazing a new trail representing normal size women! Bravo!!
my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insight at the end there, not leave it with we leave it to you to decide.
they need to be good role models and not be too reaveling in modeling,knowing respectible advice on realationships and moral bounderies.