Honey they shrunk the supermodel
As a teen, I thought Cindy Crawford was the epitome of hot.
Cindy "Chunky" Crawford rocks a runway in 1995, years before forcing me to buy a house full of Rooms To Go furniture.
Imagine my chagrin today as I perused an article in the January issue of PLUS Model Magazine that alleges Cindy wore a size 6, the same size as many of today’s non-super models.
It was quite a blow to learn I should have been buying Kate Moss calendars all those years.
The article says Cindy and other renowned hotties from a more portly era of posing (Paulina Porizkova and Billy Joel’s ex-wife) would be too chunky to make it onto the runways of today’s slimmer, and perhaps dangerously trimmer world of fashion. To prove their point, the magazine provides pics of a plus size model alongside a much thinner “straight size model.”
Fox News has a worksafe writeup, but for the pics you have to click on the full meal deal.
The pictures should “open the minds of the fashion industry,” which is stepping further away from reality, according to PLUS founder and editor-in-chief, Madeline Figueroa Jones, who is probably at least a size 8.
Jones, who may be frailer emotionally than physically, said she nearly cried when she first saw the pictures, but still ran them.
The magazine points out fashion models appear to be shrinking: “Twenty years ago the average fashion model weighed 8 percent less than the average woman. Today she weighs 23 percent less” and “most runway models meet the Body Mass Index physical criteria for Anorexia.”
Now, Cindy is 45, a mother of two and still easy on the eyes. She says she feels sorry for the supermodels of today and points out the obvious — “straight size models” have no curves.
Maybe that’s why my calendar collection stopped in 1989.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
95 comments Add your comment
@SorryFolks
January 12th, 2012
6:06 pm
I agree with some of the things you said..but as far as feeding children garbage that made them big…that isn’t true for all..I have two cousins..sisters..one is waifer thin the other is far from it..both children from normal sized parents(however one of the grandparents was always overweight even during the GREAT DEPRESSION!)…the overweight cousin eats right, and exercises but her body is what it is..and she is great at accepting that..she isn’t grossly overweight…she goes to the doctor and has a great clean bill of health..simply put her body just doesn’t burn the calories like other people…
Too me and everyone else..including her husband..she is PERFECT!
nancy
January 12th, 2012
6:14 pm
i am 125 and a size 4 was falling off of me today. i think they are making the clothes bigger now for some reason…..
WendelllovesJanet
January 12th, 2012
6:21 pm
I design clothes and I am amazed that most women that are my clients aren’t a size 6. The average woman is a 12/14. I think that fashion has always been way off the mark when it comes to a true woman. Sometimes when I look at fashion shows..My mouth drop..a lot of those models are rail thin..the clothes hang off them..they look like they really need to eat..sad..Someone get thast girl a meal.
TrollsAreOutTonight
January 12th, 2012
6:39 pm
Give it a rest… @SorryFolks. I’m calling BS. You’re alone in your Grandma’s basement right now doubling this blog with World of Warcraft…C’mon, admit you’re the lonely troll out to get some attention from the blogoshpere, right?
Now call me a liar…
Kate
January 12th, 2012
6:42 pm
What nobody is saying is that a “size 6″ has become meaningless to define anything.
A size 6 can be the same actual dimensions as a size 4 or a size 10, depending on the store, brand and fabric.
And all clothing sizes bear no relationship to 30 or 40 years ago. All sizes are made bigger and can’t be compared to what they were then. If you shop vintage clothing, that becomes immediately obvious.
ATLPeach
January 12th, 2012
6:56 pm
@Sandra, are you crazy? A woman that is is 5′5″ and wears a size 10 is healthy, not large. Wow! How many women do you know that height and size? Inquiring minds want to know.
This article is dumb. Only an idiiot thinks a size 6 is plus size.
Waldo 313
January 12th, 2012
6:58 pm
I don’t care what size they are. As long as they’re not fat!
RealWomenWAYHotter
January 12th, 2012
7:07 pm
get a sammich said: http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2012/01/12/honey-they-shrunk-the-supermodel/?cp=2#comment-18149...
The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is not even worth watching anymore. I dont know who is telling these new age models they look good but it aint the American public.
I got the mail out of the box the the other day and the stack included the latest Victoria’s Secret catalog and my wife’s Oxygen magazine. A quick perusal of both leads me to believe that the Oxygen women – with curves and, yes, muscles! – are WAY more attractive than the VS skinnies. For reference, check someone like, say…Jamie Eason. Google is our friend.
Miss P
January 12th, 2012
7:11 pm
@Trolls…you sure have SorryFolks number!
It’s a shame when people have nothing better to be recognized for than their pants size.
What a petty, pathetic existance for SorryFolks.
And everyone else who thinks that weight is the last bastion of acceptable bigotry, prejudice and bullying.
Whatever!
January 12th, 2012
7:30 pm
@peter, every Wednesday night, at least 4 plus rounds! Care to try me?