So, I was on The Sart today and saw a pic of a brunette girl. The pic was exactly like most photos on there, just a stylish young woman in a hip outfit. No biggie. Love it. But, Scott adds some text at the bottom of the post, as he sometimes does, about the girl being "curvy" and having "sturdy" legs and being "bigger" than other bloggers. It's all said in a "separate but equal" sort of attitude.
Needless to say, people went nuts over it and did not appreciate Scott's comments at all. The reason being that this girl is clearly not overweight. In one photo you can tell that she has muscular, thick legs, but that doesn't really make her a "big" girl. This is all semantics and beating a dead horse, but I thought I'd post my comment. I haven't written anything on here in a minute and I have been BORED TO DEATH today.
"I heart this blog as much as anyone, but this post did call to mind the distorted idea of beauty as it relates to shape and size in the fashion industry.
As a fashion and beauty writer and editor in NYC, I have close friends who rank high in the world of high fashion. And although I love them dearly, their perception of acceptable weight, height, beauty, shape, etc. is perverse. Plain and simple. I think your wording is a reflection of this same kind of distorted thinking. But, I can't judge it any more than I do my friends.
I would simply urge any reading this blog to consider their own notions about the "norm" and what it means to be beautiful. The truth is beauty in the fashion world is as subjective as it gets. Beauty determined by the oldest (first developed) parts of our brain is wholly objective. This is a woman with curves, universally desired."
