"Plus Sized" ModelsWhile I know which ones I find more attractive in the pictures shown, I kind of resent as someone who is 'plus sized' that 36-31-41 at 5'9" is considered plus sized
( Read more... )
...yeah, second woman isn't "Plus-sized." she's just within "your average normal healthy female" range. hell, i'm 36-32-40, just a little shorter than she is, and i basically amount to a very large flat board (is why i can get away with cross-dressing so easily). at my smallest i was what, 36-30-38? i literally can't get any smaller than that without every bone in my body sticking out. you could play my ribs like a musical instrument. the idea that the ideal for women is a size 2 is just crazy talk, unless you can take a cheese grater to my skeleton. and i only get larger when i work out--my shoulders in particular get huge, and so do my thighs and calves. i LIKE that about myself, that i'm a big, strong adult woman; i don't need to be a tiny fragile little scrawny girl in ruffles to attract anybody--but it would sure be nice to have clothes that fit! the fashion industry is on CRACK.
Another thing they don't take into account is the skeleton. You can look "normal"from the front, but have a deep chest. When I was young no matter how much I lost, I still looked big because my ribcage was WIDE (looked fine from the side, but I will ALWAYS have wide shoulders. Why don't they admit that there's a lot of variety to the human form?
Comments 3
Reply
... Really. In what time?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment