Stylish with Substance

Endangered Species: Women's Bodies is an upcoming summit with a great goal: to help the self-esteem of women. I won't talk too much about it partly because it is trending now anyway but mostly because it is not nationally spread, and I am no New Yorker (Yankee). ;-) If you want to learn more or you can attend in NYC, click that link for the US branch.

What I'm participating in though, because these issues are important to this blog and myself, is a little meme in the theme from Beautiful You by Julie; who tells female bloggers to "participate" from afar. (I couldn't not join in!)

The blogger posed three questions for others to choose from. I had to select this two-parter,

"Why is body image important to you and what would you like to be your and your wider community's body image legacy?"

1. Why is it important to me? Because it effects my daily and virtually all-day happiness or at least contentment. I am hardly even content with myself. I feel inferior to those whose busts extend beyond their guts, or lack of guts. I assume I'm judged if I'm not wearing the utmost flattering outfit (I try so hard!). No matter what I do, my profile is never great and I worry about "looking pregnant". The thing is if I could live without fear of other women, always women, judging my shape - I would be content to not even try to change. I love food and don't enjoy real exercise in the slightest - no highs, no energy boosts, no big feeling of doing something great for myself. What if I could change the world around me or at least my perception of the world's perception of myself? So many others feel it is needed as well! Health is important, but I'd prefer my heaping (read: ginormous) near-nightly portion of delicious (read: buttered) veggies would hold more importance to my mental well-being than it does.
   
2. My community's body-image legacy? Well, I need a community, first, and it's petites / petite women. I've wanted to help petites better face this world since I was young. Even though I'll never again be a skinny teenager, I will also never again grow one inch. Also since I'm not plus-sized (just round), my community is with the shorties. I want my wider community's body image legacy to be... that women no longer think short is ugly. (It really seems like they and society do!) We constantly hear "long and lean" is the goal, but that's insulting!!! I go crazy when I hear or read of a petite girl feeling unable to wear flats, or living, living, living in heels since age 12 - because her jeans have a P attached to their size. Short is cute and feminine! Men do dig it (along with curves and meat)! Of course there are many men for any shape, but guys are at least cool with dating a girl a foot or more shorter; relax and wear some comfortable shoes on that date, missy. Heck, most men actually prefer comfortable shoes on a girl to heels. (Which man do you want, anyway?) Seriously, take all this from a girl who actually likes girls; not just boys. I love petites--You are hot.
   

Wear what you like and rock what you have! If I have one actually important flattery tip to add to that, it's just "cinch your waist". ;-) Beyond that, let's stop worrying so much. The world will be a better place.

We're bringing images of different, normal, body types to women young and less-young! Click here for all entries.

(This is a week old, but I need to spread out the topics here, yet this is important to feature.)

Click to View Full Size

Here is America's Next Top Model winner of a plus size(? whatever) cycle, Whitney Thompson, with Chenese Lewis, the creator of "Love Your Body Day", which is October 20th. We should all start that love before then, though, and try to adore ourselves a little more every day. This might include attempting to get healthier, but we shouldn't hate "on" ourselves if we're not there yet.

It's easy to do that body loathing though, I know. For instance, take how I'm not even plus sized yet I'm not as thin as "plus size" models, especially in the tummy; and how that could drive me crazy, but I’m better than that. I’ve learned it’s not a negative thing about me, it's a societal quirk. I've recently at least lost the fat in my face; I have long to go with my waist, but I'm celebrating my milestones. When boulders get in my way, like weight bounce-ups from stress or insomnia (ever lie in bed a while then get really hungry, eat and pass out? Yeah, stinks!), I'm trying to focus on the positives. I've still maintained one inch from my waist and two from my lower stomach --- all lost and kept off (as long as it's pre-breakfast, that is). And that's great for now.

The important thing is to stay positive, or anything we do will likely be a failure. Whether that’s about our weight or beyond, we must focus on rewards and successes. One great thing about my recent 7 pounds lost? My higher energy! I’m dancing randomly now, which will help me further.

The point is that even if we are actually unhealthy, it won’t get us healthy to put ourselves down. And we’ll only get bigger if we let the bullies get the best of us. We’re still us on the inside, and there’s always enough to love on the outside of anyone. Just ask your boyfriend/spouse! Don’t have one? Know that you can snag love at any size, so why not find some for yourself from your own heart?

A month ago, MomFinds.com created some buzz over the embroidery inside the band of Old Navy girls’-sized skinny jeans that reads, “super skinny”. The blogger wondered if the pant type is appropriate for young girls. Her interesting question led me to some evolving thought.

By now we should all realize that skinny jeans are poorly named. Long gone are the days of the tiny-calfed, non-elastic skinny pant. Skinny jeans are for everybody! It’s just that on some they flaunt sexy curves rather than a lack of calf.

In fact, I believe that in order to minimize the waist, but not distract from sexy, womanly thighs, skinny jeans are far more flattering than boot cut. I also think that may be why the boot-cut shape is “out”. In came curves (and I do not just mean a few extra pounds, I mean c.u.r.v.e.s.) and out went a flare. (For the record, I still love a wide-leg pant and see them as more professional for office wear.)

While women of any size can arguably rock the heck out of this hot, tight style, little girls also look more darling in the slim-cut clothing. See, every human who looks better with tiny ankles and feet (read: not men really), just look great in the fitted style. (Then of course it’s made better with a chunk-free shoe, again, on a female.) It works equally well on the curvy and the skinny, even on young ladies who definitely aren’t trying to conceal that there’s a lack of hip. It just works.

Should girls even wear skinny jeans? Answer: Look at how sloppy the boot-cuts and flares look!

Some are wondering if these children could look as sweet, but just wear this same pant by another name – any other name (I kid) would do.

Even though the consensus from blogs readers, like those of the Huffington Post, was mostly positive for the skinny jean and even mostly for its name, I think MomFinds’ question brings good wonderment regarding the hope for fashion to better treat its wearers. I am all for helping the esteem of girls, teens and women (and men!), however I don’t see this as just a child or teen issue.

Many women still struggle with weight and body esteem. There are women who don’t even have concerns about “being fat” until they are adults or middle-aged (I’m one). These women might find themselves lesser-equipped to deal with a larger body and how it makes them feel.

I’m not saying we’re right to equate the word “skinny” with snobby model cliques (in fact, I think “skinny” is what you make it mean, even if it’s one inch lost), but it can happen. So perhaps if, and only if, change should be made – it should be made across the board.

The only changes I don’t want are the removing of the elasticity and a re-booming of flared legs. No, thanks, I love my slender ankles, showing off my hips and I love my skinny!

You may have noticed here and here that I'm trying to start a movement. A pro HEALTHY female form movement. This is my second post, actually, but the first of my IMAGES to get the image more out there. That's what it's all about: seeing is believing, in this case  that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes!

Here we have Britney Spears, seen recently. OK hardly anyone is more out there than Britney Spears and her images, but it's mostly smack talk, isn't it? Well anyone would actually say grown up Brit-Brit looks great here. Woohoo! But I want to point out how she's smokin' hot and lacks a superflat six pack. This is real, and this is very sexy.

She's making me feel great. Her stomach may yet be smaller than my own, but these images do help me to feel like I definitely don't need a near-concave tummy to look absolutely, perfectly, happily and healthily sized.

Read more about what caused this campaign from this blog post, then check out a related Facebook page.

If you spot some normalcy in a celeb body on the web, comment!

Photos from UK Daily Mail Online.

*Update* This piece was long and I was so upset ("my feewings wuh huwt") that I just wanted it posted, so I later made revisions to improve its readability, just improve the article's quality. (We should all simmer on huge entries!) Enjoy!

This outrageous (literally) GAP ad is the buzzing news, destined for infamy:

"Put some pants on!"
Small Text: "Because we can't all look good in shorts."

Photo: Huffington Post & Stephanie Marcus

Ex-squeeze my love handles, er I mean, sexy hips?

How insulting!!! As someone of the cellulited-gender - yes, entire gender (heck even a man I know *hushnottelling* has some on his rear end), and past the stickly teen years, I'm horrified. I fear further for  the eyes of the larger-sized than I.

Ugh. I call for a boycott/protest of GAP. Quick, someone start a Facebook campaign for that one! Check! Done! Look below to "like" the page! (Related in the buzzosphere, Target boycott, read all about it, if you haven't yet.)

Seriously (although I'm dead serious about the boycott, too!) though, cellulite is normal. What's abnormal is airbrushing and photoshopping. What's wrong is hiding normal, yes even healthy, bodies from public eye.

And what I learned recently, a while before this ad, is that "public eye" does not just mean magazines and TV. It means beautiful, healthy, slightly less healthy, etc., women of small, medium, large sizes - great legs or not - are afraid to bare those legs. But we have a right to bare legs! Because we feel our legs are "less worthy" than those in fashion ads (please!), we might opt only for bermuda shorts. Even when those shorten us (our legs), and therefore, widen (our entire frames). Short-shorts lengthen like a great pair of heels. So yes, they even thin us out, if a pear-shape is our problem.

Asking the question, "should some people not wear shorts?" (the Frisky) due to this ad is understandable coming from a shocked viewpoint. But asking that question is also akin to asking,

"Should female human beings not wear shorts?"

It's ridiculous. Sure, not all women have cellulite - but they should merely wait a few years. Even thin, toned middle-aged women get cellulite ... as low down the leg as the back of  the knee. Still, we can't ban shorts for women over 35, can we? What about those with beautiful curves and cellulite at 19? When will it end?

The slippery slope argument can be made, and made well I believe, in the shorts debate.

I've already written my plea to women of today in a draft for a future post about staying cool & stylish in the summer heat, but I will steal from it.

Don't be afraid to bare your cellulite. If you don't feel hot enough to stay cool in the epitome of summer fashion -shorts, you might just be wrong. Curves and cellulite are absolutely normal, and we need more images of these things, of real women, in the world. ... I won't be ashamed of something that's absolutely average.

Maybe I hate other parts, but I can live with even the least thin parts of my legs, and the rest of the world should too.

What about you? Please make some sort of pledge. Comment, Twitter, Facebook, Blog.

And please like the "cause" on this Facebook page that I did just create.

The code is below. But it's hard to read.

Britney Spears has done a new ad campaign for Candies, but this is not just one more in their long relationship. Word is she didn't want to appear retouched. You'll see below why that was an absolute no-go on its own, so the shoe company offered to devote a part of their campaign to a split screen ad only vaguely about shoes (about the shoes, there is one cute pair in the gallery after this article).

[caption id="attachment_3020" align="alignnone" width="360" caption="Before half of the frontal "before and after" spread"][/caption]

The new Spears/Candies move is in the wake of the year-old French Elle with no make-up, this month's Marie Claire boasting the same (with Jessica Simpson, picture included in article), paired with numerous "photoshop" scandals that leave real women --- readers and followers of these publications and stars --- insulted and brimming with criticism.

This particular version of an un-retouched star is somewhat reminiscent of the very accidental slip of a brief Internet publishing of a pre-retouched, blotchy Kim Kardashian. While Kim quickly blogged that she loves her real body, she nearly as quickly changed that body, slimming down in the gym. That move obviously hurt the curvy/love-yourself cause and is plainly quite aggravating - so it does paint Britney's original, along with her intentions, in a beautiful light.

The major difference to this boldly publicized "before" is that there is no way the original could have been published anywhere aside from a tabloid or to support this cause. It's not due to flab, Britney's looking slim, but due to mere general flaws.

[caption id="attachment_3021" align="alignnone" width="298" caption="Candies' retouched version. (Ours is below, we hope you like it better.)"][/caption]

Last Tuesday, fashion bloggers were ahhing over the novelty of photos so honestly-unretouched, while it seems other publications & media outlets buzzed over her camel toe (in even the retouched version, by the way - above).

While it is refreshing to see a celebrity with true flaws (Oh I just mean the leg bruising probably from a rigorous dance routine, no insult here -- oh wait, and nasty feet, sorry Brit but it's true). What makes it especially refreshing right now is this "coming out" is in a world where perfect 10s make "unretouched" / "un-made-up" (yeah right) magazine covers and those create oohs and even some refreshed sighs.

Even more important than refreshing is that these images can be used to support the simpler acts of photoshopping/retouching, while also still pointing out the cruel eyes that guide hands to change women into fairy tale beings we don't want parading in front of our daughters.

Using the two Candies' front shots as examples, there's nothing wrong with Spears' shape, the beauty issue lies with the coloring and details of her legs and feet. (OK I might be harsh on feet.)

The Candies' marketer/graphic artist still went to extremes to shrink Britney, in addition to the acceptable-in-some-cases* smoothing of her skin. They gave her a 12-year-old's waist and stick legs where Britney's real-life tone is actually a badge. And how dare they lean down her perfect-for-28 slim yet womanly arms?

Yes, the extent is "normal" and arguably to prove a point, but it's not just to prove that point, these moves would have been made regardless.

Of course certain artistic photos and glamorous, swirling advertisements require more perfectly smooth and glistening skin - these things are about image, idealism, want. They correspond with equally or moreso false backgrounds, so what can we really expect? I bet we do want superhuman images, sometimes.

I still see a problem when it's a celebrity vs. a model, though. A face and body so well-known, especially in the days of tabloids, suddenly or sometimes appearing altered to an ideal is very unsettling to real humans, especially women. Possibly worst of all is it is damaging to young girls' self-esteem and development at a time when mental health is a more serious concern than any other point in life.

I decided to have fun and do some retouching of my own

to serve as a better example of appropriate ways to alter a star. I did go an extra mile and accentuate a smaller waist, but mostly to only show what is acceptable, and I think this is the farthest that should be gone.

Unfortunately I've realized these photoshop artists must be serious nerds who pore over literally every pore, trying to create their fantasy women. Fellas, if this is true and you, that could be why you might have trouble with women. Aside from your flawed desires, it's not you, it's your view of them.

Of course in reality the profession is mixed with money-hungry marketing-savvy people who just cannot stop until they've seen beyond perfection. Trust me, I understand the need to pick, but it must stop. In this case, the perfectionism is not an art - it's just evil business.

A fun Discovery program, Science of Sex Appeal, discussed the ideal female waist to hip ratio in terms of male attraction. By waist to hip, we're talking visually from the front so there's no worry about measuring your gut to see if you, well, measure up (or down). Not in this case.

[caption id="attachment_2833" align="alignright" width="210" caption="Marilyn Monroe seemed to have an excellent .67 score in Waist to Hip (see our shoenote)"] [/caption]

The ideal ratio, confirmed by studies like one from Harvard University, is a fairly curvy 7 to 10. That's about what I have, and I've no waify waist. In fact, just a defined one, big hips ... and let's not, no do, forget that gut.

Oddly the TV program sort of ignored the very wide hip demographic when discussing how an even smaller and yet even smaller waist compared to the hips were visually hotter to guys. A 6-and-lower to 10 ratio was said to be inhuman (or perhaps it wasn't until as low as 5, but that was the gist). Odd because even though cartoon-character waists are either unhealthy or literally unreal, there are a heck of a lotta big hips out there, which can turn into a 7 to 11 on up. Same extra sexiness, right?*

So worry not, if you've got 'em, rejoice. Conversely if you're worried that, even if your stomach is flat, your waist is not defined enough - you can always add some fat to your love handle or thigh areas. ;-)

Or at least that's the way I see it. Gosh if thigh counts and not just padded hip bones, then I'm hotter than Marilyn Monroe, pictured. ;-) I newly love my thighs, or at least most of them.

[caption id="attachment_2846" align="alignnone" width="380" caption="Esteem-spiration!"][/caption]

I've also recently discovered that even with some "flab" and cellulite, I really do have great legs, not just calves. And look at my relatively thin akles!

You, too, should look at your body with a positive attitude. Find something to feel good about today, and hopefully you'll feel great tomorrow and the next day and .......

ShoeNote:

*I asked a more math-inclined individual and he mentioned something about how .6 is better than .7 (getting those numbers is easy, deriving from a blank to 10 ratio). He said 7 to 11 is still lower than .7. It only makes sense, but I wanted to check.