Amanda B. sent in this screencap of the teaser for a story on the Shape magazine website:
That is the image we’re presented as a woman who isn’t “skinny.” This photoshopped picture is, apparently, what counts as being curvy in Shape: a perfectly hour-glass figure with large breasts (that have been contour shaded/highlighted to emphasize their size and roundness).
Just to be sure you don’t think Shape is arguing that you, yourself, should accept your body the way it is, the article includes a link to Kim’s workout routine so you can “get her body.”
It’s another example of articles that pretend to be presenting an alternative to beauty standards/Hollywood ideals (be confident! Even stars have cellulite! So what?!?) but ultimately reinforce them, both by presenting images in which the featured women’s bodies differ little from those seen in the rest of the magazine and by making sure you know how to diet and exercise in order to get your body to conform.
Comments 29
Leslee Beldotti — May 23, 2010
But she's still one of those "girls" with large breasts.
Because we certainly can't have "girls" with flat chests. Oh no!
(When do female humans stop being referred to as "girls" and become women? Male humans stop being "boys" around 18-25 years of age. The same doesn't seem to apply to us gals. How come?)
REAvery — May 23, 2010
Indeed, Kim, you will never be a girl again, as you have clearly reached adulthood.
Somehow I thought "not being skinny" involved, um, body fat in some way...?
nobody — May 23, 2010
So we can either be a skinny "girl" (skinny with small boobs) or a non-skinny "girl" (skinny with large boobs)?
Awesome.
Beauty and the Beast — May 23, 2010
[...] out the article at Sociological Images here. Leave a [...]
Guido — May 23, 2010
Daddy like!
Anonymous — May 23, 2010
mm, radical chic, so lucrative.
Katia — May 23, 2010
Pushing this idea of "curvy" is idealizing a body type that is even more unrealistic and unattainable than that of the stick-thin runway model. I hear the word curvy used frequently to describe women like Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, or useless Kimmy here. These are very thin women with large breasts and round bums. This is a body type that, if you are not born with it, can ONLY be acheived through surgery. A women can diet herself into the stick thin model body, but her breasts and bum will likely disappear. If she has the fat to pad out tits and ass, she will have fat on the rest of her as well. The only way to get this body is to have implants put in or fat suctioned out. I assume that too many naturally thin women were conforming too closely the ideal body, so it had to be made even more unattainable.
Anonymous — May 23, 2010
If anything, this ad redefines the "ideal body" as further to the thinner end of the spectrum, since the caption treats what we've come to know as the "ideal" body as if it approached "too fat" and as if there were something radical about accepting such a "non-skinny" body.
It reminds me of those awful magazine covers with a picture of Jessica Simpson looking thinner and more hourglass-shaped than most women can dream of being with the caption "I'm proud of my body!" as if it was shocking... or, one level up on the "fat scale", the "250lb Kirstie collapses!" crap. Redefine the former ideal as barely acceptable, redefine a weight that is actually not that unusual among perfectly healthy women as on the verge of collapse... god, I'm so sick of this garbage.
meerkat — May 23, 2010
I honestly cannot tell by looking that she is not "one of those skinny girls."
contrabalance — May 24, 2010
What a ‘soft’ target. People, this is an ad. Created in order to make women feel bad about their bodies, ya know, to sell a product! Bitching about the expressed, obvious purpose of such a thing is not in any way an analysis.
Shape Magazine: Is it About Fitness or Just Being Skinny? — May 24, 2010
[...] Chelsea Handler just do a cover? And don’t we look to magazines like this for help? Gwen at Sociological concepts writes, “It’s another example of articles that pretend to be presenting an alternative to [...]
Katia — May 24, 2010
http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kim-kardashian-cellulite-cover.jpg
I just came upon this cover that combines the trend of treating thin women like they have horrid fat to be ashamed of with the trend of celebrities appearing "un-retouched" (but very heavily made-up, very flatteringly lit, and very carefully shot). It looks to me like Kim has enough body makeup on to cover the hull of a small sea faring vessel here.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/17/britney-spears-untouched/
Mario Fanboy — April 30, 2018
You'll always be a whore!
Lucy Richmond — February 10, 2020
Good God. I was born with curves even deeper than her (32-24-34 5'1") and I have been an athlete my whole life and I don't even look that good. This just pisses me off and makes me want to get rid of my stupidly thick thighs and hip dips even more, and all the chubbiness around my stomach and replace it with perfect abs. Honestly sometimes I even want to make my hips smaller but I can't because that is literally my bone and she's "not skinny" yeah right not skinny my a$$ like seriously what is up with this hoe!