personally i believe it depends on the woman reading it. i know for myself i want to lose weight and there are times i get lazy with it and i see a pic of brit-brit or kim k. and i'm like "okay, i need to get back on it" but i'm not striving for a size 0, i'm striving for what i know will look good on me and how comfortable i'll be.
however, although i believe it soley depends on the woman reading it, i do feel like the standard has changed somewhat. you look at beyonce, kim k., and other curvy, BEAUTIFUL celebs and they're actually making curvy look good now, whereas before, curvy was considered somewhat overweight. BUT even though the standard has changed to an extent there are still some mag's that do believe if you're famous and not a size 0 then you're fat. like, kelly clarkson. they keep talking about how fat she is and she weighs 160 pounds.... okay, i'm 5'2 and weigh 155 pounds. i don't feel i'm overweight or anything. i mean, these double d's alone weigh about 6-7 pounds. lol! but i'm like damn!!! when did 160 become OVERWEIGHT you know?
i just think it'll always be a contradiction with mags so that's why i feel that the woman needs to be confident within herself because this stuff that mags put out there will never change. someone will always get slammed for gaining a few pounds here and there, or for having cellulite, or older celebs and how they "look like crap" because they're 50 something and don't look like how they looked when they were 20. but then they'll pick and choose you know? i get In Touch in the mail. one issue came out slamming kim k. left and right for her cellulite and then a few weeks later they put her on their best beach body list and talking about how sexy her legs and her curves were. wtf?! lol! it's like, which is it?? she looks the same. do you think she's fat because she has cellulite or you think her body looks great??
fucking media