Now I want to know if people riding the subway in Boston are seeing giant, curvy women in their underpants on the walls of all the MBTA stations... If not, they _should_!
A lovely notion, but as ever, I can't help but wonder why the celebration of curvy women must involve designating them the real sort, which to me implies that the other kind of women (the slender petite and not especially endowed ones) are fake, imaginary, or otherwise less than "real".
I thought it was saying 'real' because they weren't starving themselves and were not actually models for a living, and not necessarily because they were curvy, myself.
However, yes - the trend you are noting is certainly one I've seen often enough.
Phrases like "real women have real curves" rather make me tend to think that the curves is what determines the reaness. (Gee, can you tell this is a button of mine? :) )
Huh, I always thought "real" just referred to "natural". As opposed to the scarily thin, well endowed women who generally have had surgery to help with the thinness and/or curves, and have been airbrushed to have perfect, skin and such.
Because while they do exist in the real world, there aren't many naturally ribby triple Ds, and I've certainly never seen a woman without pores =P
Ok, that I'd buy. (The trouble is, I'm a naturally thin well endowed woman. Not a triple-D, but still - currently, I'm a 32D, which is hard enough. I know I'm in the minority - according to clothing manufacturers, I'm too statistically insignificant to bother making stuff for. I get to hear _a lot_ about how nobody is that thin naturally, and skinny people are too fragile and bony to cuddle, and my favorite, real women have meat on their bones. It gets old after a while.)
I certainly get no complaints from people who actually try. And I dare say in the case of the ones who stay away for that reason(and I know there are some of them), it's their loss altogether.
I feel your pain - I'm on the other side of the "can't find clothes that fit me" spectrum. Because goodness only knows that anyone who has a large frame must have large breasts...
And while I don't think I've been turned down for cuddling, it's still no fun to have people react with shock when they find out how much I weigh. And I still don't know what to make of being told I have "serious wristage" =P
My life is made more difficult by the fact that I have a very strong preference for 100% cotton, no underwire. Which means that when I see something that works, I stock up.
I've got a stash of Victoria's secret ones that they don't make anymore. (I found them in one of those semi-annual sale bins, and picked up every one I could find).
Currently, I have high hopes for a particular Playtex (http://www.playtexnet.com/detail.asp?id=251&bId=13) one that they don't have in 32, but I think a 34 would work on me on the tightest setting (which I know isn't too helpful to you). A couple of my favorites came from TJ Maxx (Jockey, and they don't make'em like that anymore), which is always a hit-and-miss proposition.
On the other hand, right now I'm actually a bit skinnier than I should be. When I don't stress so much that I forget to have lunch for a few months, I'm a 34, which makes shopping a lot easier.
Thanks for the hints! Yes, I too have a stash of Victoria's secret ones that are now discontinued. Sadly this style can now be had only in the 34 and that's not going to work. Definitely next time I find something good I'm going to buy a bundle of 'em!
The only reason I didn't is because I don't know cadhla, and therefore felt obliged not to explode all over her journal, as much as I would have liked to. (I do happen to disagree with her assessment of the campaign in response to you. The words say "Real women have real curves", which to me does _not_ include the notion that "and lack of curves is cool, too" as much as apologists might claim so.)
Ah. I know her--not tremendously well, but well enough that we recognize each other in filkrooms and chat outside of them--so I was slightly more comfortable blowing my top.
My first thought was that there were ads of underpants and someone had hidden pictures of curvy women in the decorations there. This came from the wondering if people have seen such things. My second thought was a cjsmith writes and that was just silly. It would get rather crowded down there even if rather fun.
After reading the comments, it made much more sense...
park street is covered in giant curviness... it really is a sight to behold. kind of dizzying at first. i am starting to feel too skinny (and i am not exactly skinny!). the disappointing thing, though, is the commentary scrawled on some of the ads. ah well.
park street is covered in giant curviness... it really is a sight to behold. kind of dizzying at first. i am starting to feel too skinny (and i am not exactly skinny!). the disappointing thing, though, is the commentary scrawled on some of the ads. ah well.
Yeah, there definitely are posters everywhere. The irony is that they're mostly accompanied by ads for Dove's "Intensive Firming Lotion." They have catchy slogans, like "Let's face it: firming the thighs of a size 2 supermodel isn't exactly a challenge."
It's a bizarre double message: "Look, all these women are beautiful! But they'd be even *more* beautiful with firmer thighs!"
Now see, I took a different message from this. One of the slogans I've seen is "Dove's Intensive Firming Lotion: As tested on real curves." To me, this implies that the pictures are of the women after using the lotion. Their thighs, though not small, don't have a single jiggle in sight.
What I think of when I see these ads are that the women are fit, of a variety of sizes, and all beautiful in their own way. While more variety in the ads would be nice, I don't think that a woman with large amounts of cellulite would be able to promote a firming cream as effectively.
I don't think that the ads convey the message that all women are beautiful but rather that a wider range than is commonly accepted are beautiful. It's not a perfect message, but I think that it's an excellent step in the right direction.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wispfox
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 06:45 pm (UTC)However, yes - the trend you are noting is certainly one I've seen often enough.
Variety, people, variety!
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:10 pm (UTC)*grin* Yes! ;)
And I have no useful reply, because advertizing is, in it's core, about generalizations.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:09 pm (UTC)(otherwise, seriously, though - yes, reality is far more wide than any specific ad or generalization can make use of. Thus, the problem)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:50 pm (UTC)Because while they do exist in the real world, there aren't many naturally ribby triple Ds, and I've certainly never seen a woman without pores =P
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:24 pm (UTC)And that is all I have to say. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 03:08 am (UTC)Also, thank you!
no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 03:58 pm (UTC)Agreed. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:47 pm (UTC)And while I don't think I've been turned down for cuddling, it's still no fun to have people react with shock when they find out how much I weigh. And I still don't know what to make of being told I have "serious wristage" =P
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 10:03 pm (UTC)[In a girly-confidences voice attempting to hide an edge of desperation:] Sooooooooooo! Where do you shop??
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 03:02 am (UTC)I've got a stash of Victoria's secret ones that they don't make anymore. (I found them in one of those semi-annual sale bins, and picked up every one I could find).
Currently, I have high hopes for a particular Playtex (http://www.playtexnet.com/detail.asp?id=251&bId=13) one that they don't have in 32, but I think a 34 would work on me on the tightest setting (which I know isn't too helpful to you). A couple of my favorites came from TJ Maxx (Jockey, and they don't make'em like that anymore), which is always a hit-and-miss proposition.
On the other hand, right now I'm actually a bit skinnier than I should be. When I don't stress so much that I forget to have lunch for a few months, I'm a 34, which makes shopping a lot easier.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-23 06:09 am (UTC)Random thought in response
Date: 2005-07-22 06:34 pm (UTC)The society I live in is profoundly weird.
Re: Random thought in response
Date: 2005-07-22 06:42 pm (UTC)The society I live in is profoundly weird.
Indeed. To all of that!
Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 06:47 pm (UTC)Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 06:57 pm (UTC)I admit that every time I look in my underpants I see a, well, a smallish curvy woman. Part of one, anyway.
Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 07:03 pm (UTC)Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 07:17 pm (UTC)Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 08:04 pm (UTC)My second thought was a
After reading the comments, it made much more sense...
Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 07:03 pm (UTC)Re: underpants
Date: 2005-07-22 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:03 pm (UTC)Commentary, however, not so good... Meh. (are you
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:14 pm (UTC)sorry bout that. silly being-at-work. feel free to delete one or the other ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:18 pm (UTC)(and I get it; I forget to log in before replying to comments _often_)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:17 pm (UTC)The irony is that they're mostly accompanied by ads for Dove's "Intensive Firming Lotion." They have catchy slogans, like "Let's face it: firming the thighs of a size 2 supermodel isn't exactly a challenge."
It's a bizarre double message: "Look, all these women are beautiful! But they'd be even *more* beautiful with firmer thighs!"
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 08:18 pm (UTC)And I still love your icon. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 09:14 pm (UTC)What I think of when I see these ads are that the women are fit, of a variety of sizes, and all beautiful in their own way. While more variety in the ads would be nice, I don't think that a woman with large amounts of cellulite would be able to promote a firming cream as effectively.
I don't think that the ads convey the message that all women are beautiful but rather that a wider range than is commonly accepted are beautiful. It's not a perfect message, but I think that it's an excellent step in the right direction.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-22 11:17 pm (UTC)