mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
So you might recall the quasi-controversial post I threw up last year about super-skinny models and how Spain had barred models below a certain weight from fashion shows. A month ago, I heard Italy was drafting new laws, as well, and possibly New York.
But not the French. No. Recently, Didier Grumbach, the head of the French fashion federation decided the French will not place similar restrictions on skinny models, justifying the action by explaining that their rules on health are already strict. He also explained there had been both round and very skinny models in the history of fashion.
If you don’t believe him about the round models, just take a look over at judgmentofparis.com. As the Rubenesque name implies, they are all about celebrating plus-size models as living embodiments of the Classical ideal of beauty, and even have a survey you can take asking who you think is the most attractive of them all.
From the website: “After all, the plus-size female figure was the acknowledged ideal of beauty in every century prior to the twentieth, and femininity was revered as the essence of womanly allure throughout human history.”
Comments (21)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
Yowza! Work it baby!
posted by Andie on 1-31-2007 at 8:32 am
Yeah, I remember when you “threw up” that post last year. You’ve come a long way since then; you’ve broken the binging-and-purging-information cycle. Just remember, we like you just the way you blog.
posted by andrej on 1-31-2007 at 8:44 am
Yay for real normal women!
posted by Miss Cellania on 1-31-2007 at 9:07 am
I’ve got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I’m definitely not in support of people who starve themselves to look good. But on the other hand, I am guessing that part of the reason that “Rubenesque” women in centuries past were so respected was that their size was an indication of the fact that they were rich and didn’t have to do any labor. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that people in our society see more muscular, toned bodies as beautiful.
I don’t think any particular body type should be accepted as “the best.” Some women are naturally big and beautiful, even if they are the picture of health. Some women wouldn’t develop curves if they ate 10 big macs a day while sitting on the couch. Any body type can be beautiful – as long as you’re healthy, you should feel good about yourself!
posted by Molly on 1-31-2007 at 9:14 am
Molly, I agree. At the turn of the 20th century, it was more fashionable to be pale than tan because that meant you were weathly enough to not have to work in the sun.
I also think it’s great that the site celebrates more robust women. Yay for being accepted as is! :)
posted by Kate on 1-31-2007 at 4:06 pm
I looked up the site, but the link is wrong. Turns out it’s actually:
http://www.judgmentofparis.com
no “e” after the g. Great site, but takes a while to get the hang of navigating it.
posted by Carrington on 1-31-2007 at 11:57 pm
TERRI FROM DEGRASSI IS FEATURED ON THAT SITE!
posted by hannah on 2-1-2007 at 12:08 am
I recall that old post of yours and it certainly did cause quite a row. In fact, I think it was the 1st comment I ever left on this site. But months later, I remain unmoved by the notion of enormous women showing off.
Everyone’s making such an effort to remove themselves contextually from this point in aesthetic history. Eating excessively because you can is No Longer Appealing, as we’re now given access to as much as we could possibly want. Conciliating comments about those in underdog status (ie – “healthy” sized women) seems cheap. If I lived a few hundred years ago and couldn’t get laid cause I’m a pitiful 100 lbs, you folks would be saying the same tired thing: “Don’t let society get you down, girlfriend!! Cause we all know that you’re the one who looks truly healthy.”
Admit it!
posted by Amanda on 2-1-2007 at 11:17 am
I still contend modern women’s fashion amounts to a gay plot to make otherwise goodlooking women look bad.
posted by Nat on 2-7-2007 at 7:49 am
Historically, the aesthetics of a woman’s physique was measured by the living conditions of the upper social classes. If a woman was well fed in times of famine, she was considered beautiful and desirable. If a woman, today, is slender it indicates she has the time and means to exercise daily and buy proper food, and not sit at a desk eating junk food, making a living.
posted by Nat on 2-7-2007 at 8:02 am
You know, it’s interesting to me that people put the plus-size “ideal woman” into historical context – pale and fat meant you were rich enough that you didn’t have to do manual labor outside. But they fail to try to put the 20th century “ideal” image into its own context.
It’s still the same thing. Now, being tanned and fit gives the appearance of being wealthy enough that you don’t have to slave away inside an office building while sitting at a desk for 8 or more hours a day.
Oh, and you’re rich enough to afford healthy foods.
Because guess what, folks? Poor women tend to be pale and fat because they’re working low-end factory line jobs and buying McDonald’s dollar menu food (or hamburger, potatoes, and eggs – all cheap and filling) for the family because they can’t afford the $18/pound organic, free-range chicken.
It’s not all about stuffing your face with doughnuts all day.
posted by Dsquared on 2-7-2007 at 9:07 am
However, it may be that times they are a changing: The rich of the US are now so far away from the middleclass that we are not dreaming so much of that 80’s Rich B____ Girl, of which Hall & Oates sang, nor the Skinny Trophy Wife of the 90’s. Now, a zoftig, office seat spread bottomed girl is not unappealing, in our modern times of two-income families.
posted by Nat on 2-7-2007 at 10:57 am
Of course, when the rich folks’ wives stop being considered the acme of femininity by the common people, the rich folks, as a class, are in trouble.
posted by Nat on 2-7-2007 at 11:22 am
I like how everyone is assuming that only poor people are “curvy.”
Look around, in our day, looks aren’t as much associated with class.
You put a group of different sized people in identical clothes, and I bet you can’t tell which people are rich and which are poor.
posted by Andi on 2-7-2007 at 1:24 pm
Nat, I *swear* your comments weren’t before mine when I posted. :)
posted by Dsquared on 2-7-2007 at 2:32 pm
Andi,
One’s feelings are rarely affected by the evidence of scientific methodology, but more by gestaltic systhesis of the totality of experience. That is to say, stereotypes. Certainly, slavishly following cultural stereotypes makes one a ’sheeple’, but rejecting them all outright makes one lose all understanding of humanity. Neither submit to nor reject your stereotypes. Analyze them, and see where they come from and what function they have. You need some of them.
posted by Nat on 2-8-2007 at 7:58 am
And, speaking of observation and evidence, I never wrote of “the poor.” I was writing of the middle class. You know; we, the majority. The middle class is getting progressivly fatter, and progressively poorer, every year. And, the slender, aerobic, stay-at-home soccer mom is going out of style.
posted by Nat on 2-8-2007 at 8:01 am
(If we sing in chorus, maybe they’ll listen to us, ‘Squared.)
posted by Nat on 2-8-2007 at 8:04 am
UNFORTUNATELY MY X-WIFE DIED 1 YEAR AGO FROM BOLEMIA. i GUESS YOU KNOW WHERE MY DAUGHTER AND I STAND ON THIS!
HELL WHY NOT HAVE BOTTOM OF THE GUTTER PROSTITUTES AND DRUG ADDICTS DO FASHION SHOWS? THEY ARE ALL SICK AND WE SHOULD NOT HELP THEM CARRY OM WITH THE DISEASE AS EVENTUALLY THEY WILL DIE.
posted by JOHN BROWN on 2-8-2007 at 11:31 am
I tend to agree with Nat. Whether stereotypes are good or bad, they come from somewhere. In the last 5 years I ran into medical problems that took me decidedly out of the “middle class”. What I’ve found is that it is extremely hard to feed yourself well on $1,000 a month. If you ride public transportation and see someone who is “bigger” most people assume that a) they don’t take care of themselves and/or b) that they are poor. It’s an unfortunate stereotype but it’s not completely wrong. It takes money to feed yourself well. The $1 menu and McDonald’s looks awfully tempting when you are trying to feed yourself or a family on very little money. I think what we should really be looking at is the difficulty of accsessing healthy foods.
posted by Sarah W. on 2-8-2007 at 11:53 am
Sarah – I totally agree. There was that absurd idea brought up in ‘94 to assess a “fat tax” or “Twinkie tax” on foods high in calories (or fat) and low in nutrition. Making McDonald’s less affordable won’t make people healthier. Like you said, the goal should be to make healthy foods more affordable and attractive to lower-income (including the vanishing middle class) families.
posted by Dsquared on 2-8-2007 at 2:25 pm