Robyn Lawley, What Do You Think?

She isn't unhealthy, nor is she a plus-size wearer, but in the industry they use average women as plus-size models, which is not her fault.

I agree with all the comments about fat shaming and skinny shaming - I wish we weren't using those adjectives at all. Once again, we have women fighting other women.

I'd like to see numbered sizes being used without the words "skinny" or "plus" or "women's" sizes. Why can't stores be arranged with clothes just labeled by number? Granted, not all styles will be made in all sizes, but there's no reason displays couldn't be grouped by 0-6, then 8-14, then 16-22, etc. If every woman had fashionable choices in her size, the fashion industry would benefit, sales would increase because we all want to dress in a way we feel is flattering (whatever that means to each of us), and no one would feel that she was left out by the value judgments of the industry.

If it benefitted more models who weren't suffering from eating disorders at the demands of the (largely) male dominated fashion business, that would be an outstanding bonus.

It does bother me that "plus sized" in the fashion industry starts at a size 8 when the average american woman is a 12-14. To me plus size would start about 14-16 and go up from there.

I'm not surprised to see the skinny shaming comments made in some of the answers below. Skinny shaming is just as bad as fat shaming... It's all body shaming. Stop it. Even one of the blog posts on the main Mamapedia page includes body shaming ("thigh gap crew?"). I hate body judging posts and articles that claim acceptance, but really aren't.

"Real women have curves!"

No. Real women come in all shapes and sizes. Real women are "bodacious" and "skinny" and everywhere in between.

I do think that Robyn is a regular women's size. She might be considered "tall," but not "plus." It doesn't seem that the fashion industry categorizes their models like the clothes racks do (juniors, petites, womens, plus).

Eh, we're all too fat, me included. There is no medical need for "curves". A person can be very thin and still be perfectly healthy.

It's just a question of what society as a whole feels is more attractive to look at any given time in history.

"Curves" were attractive centuries ago when food was scarce, it showed social status to eat well, you were well to do.

Now food is abundant for most people so being overweight shows a lack of self control, poor choices, gluttony.

You CAN call the model in question "curvy" since she is not bone thin. We just don't like it since if SHE'S curvy, the rest of us a just plain fat.

I have serious body image issues so I'm probably the wrong person to ask, but, yeah, there is no medical or health need for someone like me, who is 5 ft 4 in to weigh anymore than 105-120 pounds.

Sorry, but with the exception of the reproductive process, there is no need whatsoever for a female to store ANY body fat. It's not like we don't know where our next meal is coming from.

I'd like to achieve that too, but I eat/drink too much.

:)

i think she's a lovely girl who wants a career in modeling, and has done so to the best of her ability. i'm not going to trash her.
of course it's ridiculous to relabel a size 8 as 'plus', but did anyone really expect the modeling world to become *real* overnight- if at all? it's a little like the feminism question the other day. real change does come about in great swathes from time to time, but more often it's small, almost imperceptible steps. the fact that we even HAVE a plus size model industry now is a small step in the right direction. when i was kid it was twiggy (whom i still love) and that was it.
so no, i don't think robyn is taking it a step back. anyone who thinks the fashion industry will ever be about real women, with our boniness and bulges and pear-shaped asses and jiggly thighs, is being unrealistic. the point of the fashion industry is create dream-images and make ordinary women think, just long enough to open their checkbooks, that they can look like robyn.
i can just imagine MP back in titian's day. 'how on earth can any of us realistically have a beautiful curved belly and enormous melon boobs like her? bastard! he's making us all look skinny and unwholesome!'
robyn may be 'distorting' but unless society as a whole demands 'realism' in the fashion industry, they're going to continue to sell dreams. and that will never happen. our society likes our dreams.
robyn doesn't go along with airbrushing or retouching. i think that's a pretty big step in the right direction.
khairete
S.

I couldn't find the article but I completely agree that putting the words together plus-size and size 8 is so wrong. My oldest daughter is just starting to wrestle with the crazy messages our society sends her about body image. Her body type definitely doesn't match the standard yet she is an active basketball playing beauty who is at a healthy weight. She recently asked me ,"Do boys sometimes like girls who aren't tiny?" Ugh!!!

I agree with you. Pretty much everyone does judging by comments. Begging the world to accept a super model with a perfect body that would register "healthy and average but way below weight of most Americans" at the doctor's office as "Plus Size" is preposterous.

BUT, the fashion industry is MADE for glamorous fantasies on scrawny frames. I personally feel models are not thinner now AT ALL than they have always been. They have always been gaunt. They have always had waistlines cinched in to fit through napkin rings for belts. Hollywood starlets of yore were often WAY skinnier than new movie stars. The new fury over it comes and goes maybe partially because Americans are getting bigger and bigger. I don't know. But I don't like the "The fashion industry is making me feel bad" trend.

We mamas should teach our daughters what my mom taught me: "Most women are not that thin. It's a fashion shoot. Models are an unrealistic ideal for the purpose of fashion."

I never had trouble with that concept as a teen. I went into the fashion industry and looked at skinny models plastered all over walls every day for 17 years. Meh. So what. No, this model is not plus size in the real world and it's a little weird that she thinks she's a big humanitarian changing the "standard of body images for the masses". She's still built like a Barbie doll...which is fine..but most people aren't.

No one should be looking to the fashion industry as the "example of body health". If they are they should take ownership and responsibility for that. They should be looking to fitness people or any reasonably healthy people for health advice. That's what we should remind our girls if we see them starting eating disorders because they're obsessed with models. We should tell them, "When it feels all too overwhelming: Step away from the Vogue. Put it down. Go eat a sandwich and take a walk or read a good book. Billboards and ads have always been around. You CAN look away."

She looks fat to me.

Several years ago I bought a pack of Hanes panties; size 8 was 'plus'. I laughed pretty hard at that, but it was one of those "I'm so disgusted right now, and not with myself" laughs.

If we can compartmentalize, take the emotion out of it, the problem is more or less that we let an industry determine nomenclature. If a lot of women wrote to Hanes and said "Eff you, I won't buy your clothing any more until you start reflecting realistic sizes in realistic language" that might be a start. Frankly, though, I don't see that happening. And the uppity fashion industry is separating themselves by saying "sizes x-y are normal and acceptable, anything beyond that is a plus size" because they do like to see themselves as an elite industry. Fashion, if anything, is predicated on making people feel that clothing is something more than just wearable shelter-- it is 'special'... and I think labeling an 8 a plus size is an industry version of 'brand protection'. If they just make sizes actual measurements instead of all the intent that goes with deeming something 'plus size', they likely become less elite and prestigious because they aren't differentiating themselves from the crowd.

I think the other problem is that, in this very fleet and fast media cycle, the only way to get any attention is to cause a stir, simply because there is so much (stupid) content out there. To promote her business, she's got to compete with cute kitten videos, the inane follies of the famous, real world news and the latest scandalous Twitter mistake.

If she can call herself Plus Sized (which makes me think of models like Emme) Robyn can be seen as a " champion of real women". And when you have to compete for media time with young women going topless to defy Facebook or whatever-the-hell-else we are letting determine what/how we share information-- I can see that you'd go with the most sensationalistic route possible. I mean, how many times has the bikini top with nipples been reposted?

It's a sea of stupidity out there. If I had a daughter, I'd be laughing and telling her how crazy all of this is. Then we'd look at films/pics featuring healthy-bodied actresses from when Hollywood didn't shy away from a size ten or twelve and how absolutely gorgeous they were. And we'd appreciate all of the women we know, slender and full-figured, who do so much for others and their world and how it is that looks only make up one small part of WHO we are. We'd focus on being healthy, not on numbers.

In short, the industry is effed up and this is the apple falling next to the tree.

I saw this yesterday and thought about posting it. This has been brought up before and I think it's a shame that the AVERAGE size in America is a 12 or 14 - something like that - and this chick - the way I read it is making "plus size" bathing suits in a size 10.

She's not helping women and their body image, at least in my opinion. I think there were comments about this on the blog or wherever it was posted before..."if that is plus size..no wonder we have eating disorders in the world"

She is 6'2" - her measurements are:
40-32-42
and she weighs 180 lbs.
According to http://www.bodymeasurements.org/robyn-lawley/

although it contradicts itself - how can she be a bra 36 but measure 40? That would be one tight fit...or she uses those extra links!! LOL!!

I've seen other pictures of her. She's a beautiful woman!! I'd like to be HER plus size!!!

Yes J., wonderful mother of 4, I completely agree with you. :)

I can't remember where I saw it, but I recently saw an interesting graphic. It showed six women who all weighed the exact same weight. Yet all six wore different sizes and were all shaped differently. Even the two women who were the same height and weight wore different sizes. All of them were deemed healthy by a doctor. But, one was medically under weight and one was medically over weight.

To me, size doesn't matter. Being healthy and feeling good about who you are is more important. I try very hard, for my daughter's sake, to focus more on having a healthy body. I try very hard not to comment on anyone's size. I don't know if that over weight person has a metabolic disorder that causes weight gain despite healthy eating. I don't know if that super skinny person is battling an eating disorder or just has a naturally thin body type.

Marilyn Monroe would be considered a plus size model by today's standards. Yet, she is considered one of the sexiest women who has ever lived.

And it isn't just women who face this. I know a guy who was told he was "too big" to work at Ambercrombie. He was a very fit college football player at the time.

So I just looked at this link. I have 4 daughters. If they are a size 8, I would tell then that they are anything but plus size. Living in a world of nothing but obsession with weight and looks, I worry every day about my daughters. To me, that is NOT plus size! What on earth has the world come to? She looks great!

Well, I'm 5'7 in a size 8-10 (depending on the brand...)

I'm most certainly not "plus sized."

Of course, I don't actually follow fashion at all. I am fully aware of the fact that the fashion industry exists as a platform to market their idea of beauty.

I do love some of the "transformation" videos out there, that show what the models look like before and after the special makeup and photoshopping is done. It just goes to show that even the models themselves don't look like the girls in magazines.

Of course, it also goes the other way. My SIL is naturally very thin; well below the average. She is 5'7, and was ecstatic that she "finally" passed the 100lb mark this summer. She gets a lot of flack from people saying that she is too skinny, that she must be anorexic, etc. Even when she was in school, she would get CPS called because people thought she must not be getting fed at home. The reality is that she eats like a horse, and exercises regularly in an effort to put on weight. I feel bad for her, because she is extremely pretty. Im actually a bit jealous of her looks. But she is so self-conscious about her weight that she can't see past that.

I think health is far more important than weight.

This is just so sad. It does however make me glad I have a son. I can't even imagine how hard it would be to raise a girl with a healthy body image.

I'm going to play with a little math to show just how absurd this whole fashion world nonsense is. (Probably going to be a little bit rambly so hang in there with me)
First let's use my numbers. I am 5'9". I went to a BMI calculator. I could weight anywhere from 125 pounds to 168.5 to still be considered a "healthy weight". That would give me a BMI of 18.5 at the lowest and 24.9 at the highest. Now, let's take into consideration that muscle weights more than fat, larger breasts weight more than smaller breasts. At the healthy weight of 150 pounds I was a size 10. I got down to 140 at one point and was still that size 10. If I were to loose enough weight to get down to that 125 I would no doubt have to loose all my muscle and have a 0% body fat and undoubtedly only be able to get down to a size 8, I seriously doubt I could get into a 6. I have a wider, stockier bone structure and even when "bony" have wide hip bones, rib cage and large breasts(which those all add to my over all weight as well).
Let's look at a 6'2" women, as this model is. Again, punching numbers into the BMI calculator, the least she could weight is 144 and the most would be 194. Again that puts it in the 18.5-24.9 BMI range which is the range that is called "healthy". So in order to be that size 8 she would literally have to be at that lowest 144 range of her healthy BMI range, if not lower depending on her general build. Considering me, at 144 and 5'9", fit a size 10 and I worked hard to see if I could fit the 8s at that time and it just wasn't happening at the time really says something here.

Fashion considers "average" to be a 5'4", 108-145 pound (again using that BMI calculator) women with a B cup. So what does that do to a 5'9" women with the smallest, before kids C cup and now an F/G cup with the same band size as before I was pregnant? No matter what I do, I will always be a "plus". At the little bit overweight I am today I am a whopping 1 size bigger than my healthy size (I am a 12 instead of a 10).

The way women's clothes is sized, labeled and marketed needs to be changed. It implies that everyone needs to be that stick thin little nothing, even if it's unhealthy for you to be so. It shames anyone that is just going to be naturally bigger, while not being over weight or unhealthy. There are women that are going to naturally be on the smaller side. They should be shamed. But they shouldn't be used to show all women that they should look like that, and that's the backlash we're seeing. This model is nowhere near a "plus" size. It makes me angry that she is being put forth as one. She is just one more body type that some women could look like. Odd are she's pushing to obtain a barely healthy weight in order to present this in the first place.
BMI calculators are a flawed method of measurement, they only look at a single number and not the whole person. The fashion industry is even more flawed in presenting a single body type that is supposed to be the whole world. This has nothing to do with the "US Getting Fat". This has to do with no one being able to recognize what a real body of a women should and could look like.

I agree with some of the others ladies who replied. Both skinny shaming and fat shaming should stop. It's ridiculous!
Every body is unique. It should be about being healthy. Not how much you weigh. My daughter will be ten in 6 months. I always stress "be healthy" thing. I was so shocked that they weighed the children in PE in front of everyone. Only because comments some children might say and how that can hurt another. I was Not happy about that.
Back to the article. I think it is a good thing she is doing, especially not airbrushing. True, in US sizes she is an 8. I think that just proves how crazy the media and others to think that is overweight! I think that is the point she was making.
Love yourself for your uniqueness. Just be healthy, everyone will respond to it differently, lose weight, gain weight, neither. One isn't better than the other. Accept your body and Rock what you've got!

OH my gosh I had no clue who she was, took to Google and was absolutely shocked out of my head. Her unretouched bikini picture looks like how I looked forty pounds ago and I am not fat. I repeat, not fat, nor unhealthy. She is a very pretty girl, but in no way does she represent the majority of plus sized women on this earth. I am probably a size fourteen petite and her size eight and probably about eight inches taller than me does not inspire me. Bring on the real people!

I saw that story/thing last night and if you actually read the whole thing, it is disturbing. Apparently, she is something like 6 feet tall and a size 10. That does not constitute "Plus size" in any shape or fashion. It is NORMAL, not plus sized.
I find it disturbing b/c she is seemingly being lauded for presenting normal, but allowing herself to be labeled as plus sized. That is a slap in the face to all normal and plus sized women out there.
The abnormal ones are the ones who can be thin enough to be a model that doesn't carry an extra label (plus sized). It isn't normal to be a size 0 when you are 5'10".

I don't keep women's magazines around my house (and haven't since I was single). I hope my daughter never has any interest in them. What I keep lying around is Runner's World. There are some very real bodies and very real people in it, every issue, and it is inspiring to see actual plus sized people going out and running marathons and such. (and there is rarely, if ever, a "model" sized person in the magazine. It's hard to be a runner if you starve your body.) You don't have to be abnormally thin to DO things. But society keeps pushing the image that if you aren't tiny, you have to work on that. There are other more important things to work on.

If that woman is plus size, than at 5'2" tall and 110 lbs, I'm a Cass Elliot look-alike.
All calling her plus size does is make larger women feel even larger. Not to mention that large does not necessarily equal unhealthy, any more than thin automatically equals healthy.

Pathetic that they call actually average weight "plus". I wish we had more natural fashion magazines. Compared to the sticks in clothes that are models, I guess she would be considered a plus. She's a healthy looking model.

Reminds me of the line Matt Dillon says in the movie In and Out -
" Eat something, I'm begging you! You look like a swizzle stick."

OMG! Size 8 is not plus sized! That is so ridiculous. I've grown up skinny, everyone would ask my mom if my sisters and I were anorexous, which was not true at all. Anyway, I'm beyond plus size right now but a while back I lost a lot of weight and was down to size 8. I considered myself skinny then.

Modeling agencies usually don't look for a reflection of "normal". The choose women who are usually too thin in general. She's thinner than most of us would consider "plus sized" but she (and most other models) are way taller than I am! However, I think showing more unphotoshopped, real women is a good thing overall. Debenhams has chosen models of many sizes, some who are also missing limbs, to show more diversity: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/debenhams-models/

I don't think it is her "fault" at all for being pegged as plus sized when she is healthy in an anorexic world. That is the fault of the agency, not the model. I applaud her for her untouched photos and desire to show girls that they don't need to starve. If anyone wants something to rail against, tell the advertisers they are stupid for giving her a designation you don't agree with.

Katrina, I hear that some companies are making a size 000. I'm already a 0 in certain brands. It's all a shell game.

Never heard of her before now but -- I think she looks great. I don't think she's too thin to be a plus sized model -- she looks normal, and that's great. It's definitely a step forward.

When you consider how anorexic most models look, compared to them she is plus-sized.

Weird. I just looked at that picture, and she looks downright skinny to me. No way would any reasonable person consider her to be plus-sized. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

She looks like almost every woman. She's in no way a plus size. Not at all. And if someone thinks she looks fat in that picture they might want to google what a plus size woman looks like.

A lady is not plus size until she's in a 16. They don't MAKE plus size clothes in anything smaller.

I had no idea who this woman was and when I did look at her photo, she doesn't look like a "plus size" model to me. I always picture plus size as 1X and up. Certainly not her size. I guess we all have different views on what we consider plus size.

I don't think she's distorting what "plus size" means - the industry is. And she just showed us that - I mean, I can see the shape of her bones at the top of her arms.

She looks thin to me - not unhealthy - but thin. She's a big woman (over 6') from what I have read, so she'd be in "big and tall" by men's clothing standards, but plus size? No....