Real Women vs. Models: Who do you want to see in a magazine?

[Kristen Horton]

Associated Press

BERLIN — Germany's most popular women's magazine announced Monday that it is banning professional models from its pages in favor of "real women" in an attempt to combat an unhealthy standard of rail-thin beauty that it says has isolated its readers. ...

"On its Web site, Brigitte announced to readers that "A New Epoch has Begun" and women to submit a portrait and full-body photos of themselves to considered for a photo shoot.

"We will pay the same fee as we would for professional models," Lebert said, adding that the magazine views the move as an investment. ... "We are not going to become a magazine for plus-sizes," he said.
(Lebert is the editor-in-chief of Brigitte)

From the same article:

Louisa von Minckwitz, who owns the German-based Louisa Models agency, told The Associated Press she believed the ban on models was a marketing gag that would not last for long. "Women want to see clothes on a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing person," von Minckwitz said.

Who do you want to see modeling clothing in a magazine: a "real woman" or a model?

Share your thoughts.

[Nicki Laycoax]

Exactly...

[Troy Julian]

There is a place for both! models are "real women" and "real women " of all sizes can be models.

Real is the word I think is most important.

[Melinda Cooper]

That is a good point Nikki. I am excited for real women in Glamour just because it's a large magazine and I want to see what I would actually look like in their clothes and not just what I do look like in their fat girl articles! I do agree with Nikki though that they should be an emphasis on healthier people but at the same time I think they should realize that not everyone is healthy and that's okay too.

[Jennifer Anderson-Henry]

Exactly what I was thinking, Melinda. Not only is not everyone healthy, MOST Americans aren't healthy. I just read earlier today, probably in Prevention magazine, that 80% of Americans don't do any strength-training. Ever. I'm sure we can all post about the lack of exercise and crappy eating choices ad nauseum; the point is that "healthy" (especially in Indiana, I might add) isn't even CLOSE to being the norm. So the question remains: do we want to see a "real woman" or a model? And is it our responsibility to promote what the majority deems right/beautiful/good or to reflect reality?

[matthew w. wilson]

you are on it!

fight the power!

[David L Lawrence]

I'm curious, why would anyone want to see the before in print?

image used with permission - MM URL: http://www.modelmayhem.com/grisellemakeupartist
retouch ©2009 David L. Lawrence MM URL: http://www.modelmayhem.com/PixelPurfect


David

[Allison K. Lewis]

Healthy, agreed. And, no, sadly, all women aren't real. Many are plastic surgery modified to be something other than who they were born to be. I'm not against plastic surgery, make-up, fashion ... I am alarmed though, at the number of people (not just women---body image issues in men are on the rise, too) whose self-worth is defined by something external, not internal.

Images contribute, but I want to believe our internal power should be greater than that. Our self worth requires ownership over our feelings and impacts the relationship we have with our body and ourselves. Think about how many times a day you hear "He makes me happy. She doesn't make me happy. You made me angry." No one *makes* you anything! Dr. Becky Bailey has written about this in child development but we adults have as much to learn.

[Michelle Collins]

I don't think it will catch on.... but I applaud their efforts. At least the world is talking about it now, (more) than before the article. However, Twiggy was beautiful. Some of the photos I have seen in the past many years just look like drones and I am not talking about the edgy facial expressions either. The sad thing here is that we always go to extremes when trying to set standards. So, what about the people in the middle? That aren't under/over weight? I am not too thin nor full figured. Manikins need to reflect what they are mimicking and store buyers need to be re-educated on who they are buying for. What's wrong with taking the 5'4" & 95# (spoken & unspoken) guidelines out of it all. After all aren't we ALL beautiful in the eyes of the beholder?

[Ray Hoskins]

I strongly applaud this kind of change for at least two reasons. First, I think we do incredible damage to women and men by promoting such a narrow range of criteria for attractiveness. I saw the effects in a 11 year old girl this weekend when I was doing respite for a foster family. Second, I, and most men, really like women with more curves better than the ones who are being promoted.

[matthew w. wilson]

Models

[Joe Salee]

I think that either a "real woman" or a model would be a lot better at modeling a strapless dress and stiletto heels than I would be.

daVinci, Michelangelo, and the other great artists of their times had the answer to this question figured out long ago. They didn't put to canvas the beauty of what we would refer to today as "models." Beauty is much more than a figure.

[Mike Magan]

there was a slimfast add that used "unconventional" body shapes and I thought the women were beutiful and the message from a diet comapny of health rather than barbie-like dimensions was brilliant, I thought.