Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this cover model is far healthier than the bone thin runway models living on a diet of cigarettes, cocaine, heroin,alcohol, and coffee. But as long as they're skinny that's all that counts to these people.
I agree with Cheryl Tiegs completely. This whole "fat shaming" talk is a bunch of political correctness nonsense.
Ashley Graham may have a beautiful face, and she may be a beautiful person in terms of her soul, and I'm sure whoever her boyfriend is (assuming she has one) is very happy with her. HOWEVER, based on that cover photo, she does not have a bikini body. Period. If that's a "bikini body," I have a bridge on Mars I'm considering putting up for sale.
I think the point is that other body types look good in bikinis to some people. It's not an objective standard. It's more of a socially accepted tradition to call one thing a bikini body and one thing not. It's not a "fact".
Ms. Tiegs is entitled to her opinion. Her opinion isn't that popular right now so lots of people will openly disagree. That's life. I feel like complaining about "political correctness" a lot of the time is just grumbling because a lot of socially accepted traditions from long ago are no longer popular and are in fact considered rude or wrong. People don't like getting pushback for saying things they used to take for granted everyone else thought was "true". Oh well.
Body positive activism originated from the subpopulation of women who are unhealthy and unable to attain decent fitness due to poor lifestyle and emotional issues. It's ridiculous to promote this dangerous behavior which drastically impairs one's quality of life and leads to health probems, possibly a shorter life expectancy. This girl is only getting by because she is young and her face is pretty and that extra fat on her face hasn't sagged into jowls yet. Without the make-up and the airbrushing, she is that fat woman that goes grocery-shopping in her sweatpants who nobody pays mind to nor particularly envies.
Do you seriously think that girls and women are going to see Ashley Graham on an SI cover and say, "Oh, I want to look like that, so I'm going to do everything possible to achieve her body."?
Body positive activism originated from the subpopulation of women who are unhealthy and unable to attain decent fitness due to poor lifestyle and emotional issues. It's ridiculous to promote this dangerous behavior which drastically impairs one's quality of life and leads to health probems, possibly a shorter life expectancy. This girl is only getting by because she is young and her face is pretty and that extra fat on her face hasn't sagged into jowls yet. Without the make-up and the airbrushing, she is that fat woman that goes grocery-shopping in her sweatpants who nobody pays mind to nor particularly envies.
Women who fit this description are not limited to the fat ones and not all fat women fit this description. In fact, many of them are put together quite nicely, and that's not limited to the ones in their 20s and 30s. I do not buy into all the finer points of fat activism or the body positive movement, but the parts of it that work to dispel notions like those bolded I find much needed these days. For all the talk about being PC on this thread, it's still very much socially acceptable (and even PC in some circles) to deride overweight people. It's actually less PC to be accepting of them, even if one does not embrace their lifestyle choices.
I don't see anything wrong with Ashley at all. She does not have a spare tire around her waste and she looks healthy to me. She may not be the typical chosen body type for the cover of this magazine, but there are men who would find her very appealing, and I think she is beautiful just as she is - hell, I wouldn't mind looking like her! Kudos to the magazine for testing the waters.
Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is not a health or fitness magazine. It's soft-core porn for dudes who normally like to read about sports played primarily by men. It has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting any particular lifestyle. If you think a size 16 woman is not what you want to look at, don't look. I personally find starving, bony, skinny women with huge plastic tatas to look sick and ridiculous. I also find hugely steroided overly musclebound men to be quite ugly, but I am certainly not going to tell people not to put them on magazines. Somebody wants to look at that, and that's fine with me.
I fail to see how just "women like Ashley Graham" are being used as a marketing stunt. Perhaps you can clear up how others included are not being used as a marketing stunt?
Simple. Other women are chosen because they represent a feminine ideal of beauty. The definition of "model" is essentially an ideal, an example of perfection, a model isn't really supposed to represent the masses but rather the few who through a mixture of genetics, hard work and luck, have an appearance that is considered an ideal.
Ashley was not chosen for that reason, she was chosen for the controversy and the novelty of seeing a fat woman on the cover of sport illustrated. Now, I know some people think she's not fat and it's subjective but let's be honest. She was chosen BECAUSE and only because of the fact the she is larger than the typical model. Yes, she 's pretty. I'm sure their are thousands of young women who are just as pretty but not as large.
Yes. to a degree ALL models are used for marketing. They are often chosen because they represent an IDEAL of beauty though.
As someone else aptly pointed out, I seriously doubt women are looking at Ashely Graham and wishing they had a body like that as opposed to any other typical swimsuit model you'd care to name.
34" must have a been a typo. Her measurements are listed as 38/29/45. Those are great measurements for a nearly 5'10" woman. Ford Models Ashley Graham :Height 5' 9.5" Bust 38 D Waist 29.5 Hips 45
There is NO way she has a 29 1/2 inch waist. Models always have 2 sets of measurements--the real ones and the ones that their agencies say that they have. She would have a way more defined hourglass shape to have a 15 1/2 inch difference between her waist and hips (and as it is, her waist doesn't dip in much from her bust circumference either).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
