Just calm down about body image already!

So this image has been circulating the internet for quite a while.  In a non judgmental world, it would merely call attention to the difference in the body types of the models used in each of the campaigns.  This benign compare and contrast is fascinating in itself.  In our real (and generally less kind) world, this image has been accompanied by quite a comments such as "VS models too skinny," "Real women have curves, " and "Finally! You don't have to starve yourself to be attractive."  

I understand that the Victoria's Secret models put quite a lot of effort into maintaining their figures and that the Dove models do not.  I also understand that the VS love my body campaign has more do to do with feeling sexy in expensive and generally ill-fitting undergarments, while the Dove campaign is supposed to be about body image (but is really trying to get consumers to buy soap).  Both of these facts seem lost to the masses who view and comment on the image.  

I agree with the assertions that 1. many body types can be considered healthy and beautiful and that 2. the mainstream fashion and beauty industry generally lacks diversity in shapes and sizes.  I disagree with the vast majority of the comments that viewers of the image have left.  While I think the VS models represent a shape unattainable by most people, I do not think they are too thin.  I am well aware that women without curves do in fact exist and are not imaginary.  Women have never been forced to starve themselves to be attractive (a subjective standard).  Generally people who are actually, legitimately starving (concentration camps, African famines) are not attractive (by any standard).  

I am also very disappointed and mildly offended by the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty.  They endeavor to show a "variety" of women with "real" bodies.  Where is the representation of my body?  You already know my stats from a previous post, 5'3", ~95lbs.  I am petite.  I also have the common ballet dancer/ hella-athlete-from-waist-down body type (google Maria Kochetova) with a thinner  torso and very muscular legs.  In relation to the standard of my own body, the women of the Dove campaign, with their model-tall and size 6 to 10 frames, are giants.  They represent a single body type.  This does provide a contrast from others, like the VS models.  However, I am appalled by the implication that anything smaller and less curvy is not "real."  I exist.  My fellow dancers exist.  VS models exist.  The beautiful Lizzie Velasquez, who lives with a medical condition that keeps her from holding body fat, exists.  (Find out more about Lizzie's story here: http://www.aboutlizzie.com/#!lizzies-story/ccm8)

I'm all for empowering women.  I'm all for health.  I'm all for feeling beautiful with what you have.  Just be careful not to empower one group by alienating another.

This image has been around too.  The answer to the proper punctuation-lacking question (though it is clearly rhetorical) is the mid 1960's, following Twiggy's rise to fame.  This image does not address pre-WWII fashion standards, which also favored more Keira Knightley-esque figures, thanks to Coco Chanel and her designs-for-long-narrow-androgynous bodies.  While the fashionable body type of the day fluctuates for reasons completely unbeknownst to me, I don't think that "hotness" can be definitively pinned down.  It's more of a personal thing.  

As an individual (and a "skinny girl") who likes girls, I find Nicole, Keira, and Kirsten (three rightmost images on the top panel) very attractive.  I've got a thing for Keira, so I'd call her the "hottest."  I don't find any of the women pictured on either panel unattractive, however I do think that Heidi's boobs are gross and Marilyn is a little thick for my personal tastes.  

In general, I disagree with the individual who created this image and its wording.  There is no universal standard of "hotness" or even attractiveness, and it certainly is not tied solely to body type and shape.