InStyle's Insane Ideas About Women's Bodies

In “What’s Age Got to Do with It?” (InStyle, October), a survey conducted by the magazine reveals a wealth of terribly predictable stats. Readers think Demi Moore and Helen Mirren look great for their age! Forty percent of 20-year-olds use anti-wrinkle creams! (This is not news to anyone who has ever read a women’s magazine.) And 68 percent of women surveyed proclaim that they are not afraid of aging. Of course they aren’t!

I, however, am a bit fearful about the implications of this particular statistic:

8 out of 10 think their legs aren’t perfect, but still wear skirts [emphasis mine]

“But”? Why would they say that? Oh, I get it! The subtext is that women without “perfect” limbs should stay covered at all times. No one told me I was committing a fashion faux pas by baring my legs in a knee-length skirt! What have I been thinking, unleashing my size-10 calves on an unsuspecting public?

Of course, InStyle may not be the most discerning judge of which bodies are worthy of revealing. Take a gander at the models they use to illustrate the story “Fit to Be Tried,” about jeans that solve figure challenges.

These women, from left to right, are modeling jeans that solve “tummy” (as if the mere existence of one is a flaw), “love handles,” “boyish figure,” and “large hips.” The featured jeans must be miracle workers, because I don’t see a trace of those “problems” on any of these women.

Next up, these models are grappling with a “big behind,” “flat bottom,” “saggy butt,” and “full figure.” InStyle helpfully notes that the “full figure” jeans come in plus sizes—even if models apparently don’t!

 

Then there’s Instyle’s version of “tall & slim,” “petite & slim,” “tall & curvy,” and “petite & curvy.” I won’t be purchasing any of these styles either, because if that extra bit of hip is what makes a woman “curvy,” then I’m spherical in comparison to these models.

Where did we get this idea that clothes should camouflage rather than compliment our shapes? I’m feeling the urge to subvert this ludicrous standard. Forget squeezing into Spanx, forget wearing head-to-toe black, forget anything designed to mask my so-called flaws. Anyone know where I can get a pair of fabulous hot pants?

Related: Girl With a Satchel has a terrific post about the media’s obsession with women’s bodies.

Comments

[Trillian]

I had no idea how much thought went into pocket design.

[Athena]

All of those women appear to be the same size.

[misti]

As a "petite and curvy" woman, I have to mention the fact that all 4 of those women's belly buttons are awfully level for some of them to be "tall" and some to be "short". I'm only 4'10. Those jeans would probably come up to my armpits.

[Glossed Over]

Trillian: Nor did I. It's far more than I consider pockets when I'm shopping.

Athena: What? The "curvy" ones have at least an extra half-inch on their hips, and the model with the "full figure" has thighs that almost touch!

Misti: I thought that too, but I'm not sure how much of that is the way the photos were composited. On another note, have you found pants that work for you? This is a serious question--pants are never short enough for me. I'm 5'1" and even petite jeans drag on the ground unless I'm in heels.

[jess]

Wow, I did not have nearly as visceral of a reaction to this article as you did. I don't think my legs are perfect, but I like them a lot, and they're probably my favorite feature. I wear skirts and dresses almost exclusively in the summer and I love it! The range of models could clearly be wider, but overall I thought the article was pretty positive! I don't think there's anything wrong with complementing your body shape by wearing clothes that give you an hourglass shape, which may mean playing down some features, and playing up others.

[Glossed Over]

Jess: Yeah, I felt very strongly about this! For me, it's the implications that are troublesome. There's a fine line, I think, between dressing to compliment one's shape and camouflaging it in order to resemble what society deems ideal. Who is it that decides "big behinds" or "full figures" need to be fixed or hidden?

Obviously, most people want to dress in a flattering manner. I do too! But I wonder if we all wouldn't be a little happier with ourselves if magazines taught us how to exaggerate our hips or show off a slender shape instead of suggesting we squeeze ourselves into someone else's version of ideal.

[Anna]

I personally liked the part about how last night's "pooch" might be because of "last night's margaritas or just plain bloat" as if I need to have an excuse for not having a six-pack. Maybe I just enjoy the occasional cheeseburger or baked good (Yup, I said it).

[Ariella]

Wow, one whole style of plus-size jeans? They are soooo progressive! You know, I have the money to spend on expensive jeans, but I am plus-size. Too bad the fashion companies can't get over themselves to market to people like me.

[Jessica]

Jess: I can appreciate your comment, but it is also not just about fitting to the ideal as Glossed Over comments, but the fact that even if we are to assume that we need to fit to these ideals, they aren't realistically showing "us" how. If I were to read an article that purports to instruct someone who is plus sized to wear the "right" jeans, I would expect the model depicted in those jeans not to look just like all the ones next to her who aren't supposedly the same size and shape.
So, aside from the question of whether it's ok to persuade readers to dress in a flattering way (I am certainly one who looks for the flattering styles to my type!), or in a way that hides "flaws" (as I am personally inclined to think this article does) the pictures just don't make any practical sense.

[940crackparty]

I can't read the small, non bold text to the butt view page, but does that actually say what i think it says? Am I seeing the words "butt bra" in text, and is this something that is actually being proposed as a solution to, um, anything?
Also- American Apparel rules hot pants. Gold lame high waisted short shorts. Go for it!