Model
QuietAsKept
Posts: 5935
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Fluvia is gorgeous. Until today, I didn't know that there was a Brazilian Playboy Magazine. Almost makes me want to submit to one of the international editions lol
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
theda wrote:
A current size 10 US???? No. Her hips were about 35"-37", which is not plus sized even by today's standards. Keep in mind she was also a good 5" shorter than a plus sized model of today would be, so your eyes could be playing tricks on you if you're expecting a short)ish) size 10 to be proportioned like a tall size 10.
Jane Russell, on the other hand, was about a modern 10...
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/ … 65-583.jpg Well it was sort of hard to judge height when she was laying down... Jane Russell, also an amazing women no that you bring it up.
The point is that the definition of beauty (when it comes to body shape) changes all the time. I would be inclined to say we are on the too skinny side of things today, but I recall the waif look from a few decades back; so it could be worse.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Marianne Michaela wrote:
my research? I know what a plus size model is... in this particular case, i'm not talking about a curvy voluptuous woman who does modelling. I'm talking about a plus size model. your examples, although great to hear, were not an answer to my question. Objectively, the evolution of the "plus size" modeling industry has been driven by the the upward trend of obesity. Being "plus size" is becoming more acceptable within industry because of market demand (and why we are starting to know plus-models by name.) I don't know if there has been any research on the subject, but I'm guessing that the concept of a full-time plus model didn't really exist 10 years ago (much less 50 years ago.)
Yes, plus-size women were used for catalog work, but that was the end of it. We didn't know any of them by name and they were far from famous. I applaud the move, but saying that, "It's about time!" is a rather moot point.
Marilyn is an unusual case. Her measurement ratio gave her an hourglass shape that most would would have to corset train to achieve.
Model
Big A-Larger Than Life
Posts: 33451
The Woodlands, Texas, US
Nadirah B wrote:
WTF
WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT MARILYN
FUR
GOD'Z
SAKE
PEOPLE...
Jesus - H - Christ on a Cross!? LMFAO!
Photographer
bmiSTUDIO
Posts: 1734
Morristown, Vermont, US
BettyFace wrote:
Model and dress standard sizing has changed since the '60s.
A vintage 8 is a modern 2-4. A vintage 16 is a modern 10.
Models usually featured in old Playboys were mostly around a modern 6-8. This does not, in any way, make them plus size models. A modern plus model is a tall 10-18, depending on your market. Big boobs and an hourglass shape does not a plus model make. From Newmodels.com:
"General parameters for a plus model are height between 5'8" and 5'11", sizes 10 - 18. (Generally the New York market prefers smaller plus models in the 8-12 range, and the Los Angeles market favors 14/16's.) She must be a fit, toned, proportional hourglass, and have great skin and teeth, just like straight size fashion models. A beautiful smile is a must."
If Marilyn Monroe wore a 16 as one post here suggests, then she would be considered a plus size model by today's standard (size 10).
Photographer
Mark
Posts: 2977
New York, New York, US
Flab doesnt do much for me rather see a female who has her weight under control when looking at Playboy
Model
RebeccaW
Posts: 231
Jacksonville, Florida, US
Mark wrote:
Flab doesnt do much for me rather see a female who has her weight under control when looking at Playboy Ouch. that's not very nice at all. bully for you.
Model
Josette Mynx
Posts: 403
Waco, Texas, US
BMI Studio wrote:
From Newmodels.com:
"General parameters for a plus model are height between 5'8" and 5'11", sizes 10 - 18. (Generally the New York market prefers smaller plus models in the 8-12 range, and the Los Angeles market favors 14/16's.) She must be a fit, toned, proportional hourglass, and have great skin and teeth, just like straight size fashion models. A beautiful smile is a must."
If Marilyn Monroe wore a 16 as one post here suggests, then she would be considered a plus size model by today's standard (size 10). She never wore a size 16 that is a common miss conception. With todays sizes she would be somewhere between a size 4 and 6, probably a 6. Her measurements fit that size. The one thing that doesnt change with time is how big an inch is.
Model
Josette Mynx
Posts: 403
Waco, Texas, US
I am glad to see a model with a fuller figure in playboy. She looks real.
Not to say that the women that playboy uses don't, or arent. I mean I have larger breasts, but honestly, if I was photographed nude they probably would seem "too large" for my frame, and there are a lot of women like this in their magazine. It isn't exactly what I would call the norm.
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
William Kious wrote:
Objectively, the evolution of the "plus size" modeling industry has been driven by the the upward trend of obesity. Being "plus size" is becoming more acceptable within industry because of market demand (and why we are starting to know plus-models by name.) I don't know if there has been any research on the subject, but I'm guessing that the concept of a full-time plus model didn't really exist 10 years ago (much less 50 years ago.)
Yes, plus-size women were used for catalog work, but that was the end of it. We didn't know any of them by name and they were far from famous. I applaud the move, but saying that, "It's about time!" is a rather moot point.
Marilyn is an unusual case. Her measurement ratio gave her an hourglass shape that most would would have to corset train to achieve. yes. well, not only obesity, although the fact that everyone is getting fatter (in average I mean, not literally everybody) does play an important part in it. But other important factors are also height (we also keep getting taller, someone who is 5'10 with a size 10-12 is not obese) (I don't know any current numbers for the US, but this is definitely true for europe), and the fact that the "bigger" consumer is starting to have more power, meaning they are spening more and they want more options.
I don't know what "moot" means, but I do think it's great that they have used her for playboy, and I applaud it  (I don't have anything against other bodytypes, I just really like diversity, especially if that diversity comes in such a pretty package  )
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Mark wrote:
Flab doesnt do much for me rather see a female who has her weight under control when looking at Playboy well, you can't please everyone ofcourse .
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
egyptmachine wrote:
Thank you, the whole Monroe issue is really beating a dead horse.
For me, I wanna see more pictures of this knock out! She's gorgeous! here is her website
http://www.fluvialacerda.com/index2.php#/home/
she has incredibly full hips, there's definitely a genetic factor doing it's work there
![https://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr0p1dJEIE1qzo3b4o1_400.jpg]()
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
You could be in it next!
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 8020
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:
Gorgeous! I don't know anything about models that have been in Playboy since I'm not familiar with it, so don't know the answer to your question. She's very pretty, though. Damn those Brazilians and their awesome genes lol. Examples would include from "Dancing With The Stars" on ABC
(season 12) -
Brooke Burke (show host) May 2001 Nov 2004 cover/feature
Kendra Wilkinson (contestant) Dec 2010 cover/feature
Karina Smirnoff (5x US ballroom dance champion) reported May 2011 cover/feature
(plus many more from other seasons)
Model
Cherilyn Fontaine
Posts: 1093
Albany, New York, US
Marianne Michaela wrote:
oh no I'm not saying she's the first (if I knew, there would be no point in asking, right?).
but to be honest, I'm not talking about "big boobs, small waist, big hips" either, I'm talking about agency standard plus size models 
But I see what you mean! You keep saying "industry standard" like you are referring to something other than "5'8" to 6' in height, and wear a size 10 and up" like most of the major agencies are asking for...oh wait, some are asking for 5'9"
Yeah, I'm not following what you mean when you keep saying industry standard plus size...I guess Wilhelmina 10/20, Ford 12+, and the like are not the standard of plus size you are talking about?
Model
Cherilyn Fontaine
Posts: 1093
Albany, New York, US
theda wrote:
A size 8 in Marylin's day would accommodate her 36-23-35 frame. That's roughly a 4 in modern sizes. And when you take vanity sizing into consideration, a woman with 35" hips is often buying pants in size 0. I'm 5'8" and my hips are 35"...my jeans are an 8. No friggin way 35" hips are putting their ass into a 0 even if they are stretch denim that isn't happening.
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Cherilyn Fontaine wrote:
You keep saying "industry standard" like you are referring to something other than "5'8" to 6' in height, and wear a size 10 and up" like most of the major agencies are asking for...oh wait, some are asking for 5'9"
Yeah, I'm not following what you mean when you keep saying industry standard plus size...I guess Wilhelmina 10/20, Ford 12+, and the like are not the standard of plus size you are talking about? yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about .
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
theda wrote:
A size 8 in Marylin's day would accommodate her 36-23-35 frame. That's roughly a 4 in modern sizes. And when you take vanity sizing into consideration, a woman with 35" hips is often buying pants in size 0.
. So when I look at the chart for woman dress sizes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size
Her bust alone would put her in the size 10 range by standards, but an 8 is reasonable as she often wore the tops a little tight. Now if you go by vanity or catalog sizes I can see her as a size 4.
Model
MissSybarite
Posts: 11863
Los Angeles, California, US
Marianne Michaela wrote:
not every curvy, voluptuous woman is a plus size model. I'm sure the women back then were sometimes a bit fuller than the average model you see today, but that's not exactly what i'm talking about
oh and fluvia is a size 16, very hourglass-y, with very round hips
![https://www.caras.com.br/imagens/117462/20091119133544_117462_large_fluvia-lacerda.jpg]() It's definitely easy to see why they used her in their mag ;-)
Model
Baeli
Posts: 1016
Truro, England, United Kingdom
Mark wrote:
Flab doesnt do much for me rather see a female who has her weight under control when looking at Playboy Yawn ...
Photographer
Nadirah B
Posts: 28521
Los Angeles, California, US
Model
Fur Elise
Posts: 1814
Seattle, Washington, US
Cherilyn Fontaine wrote:
Marilyn wore an 8 at her smallest and darn near a 16 at her biggest and her dresses and measurements are on display as proof to her stats...or just use the internet
xoxo yulp! she was damned sexeh too.
Photographer
Nadirah B
Posts: 28521
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
S
Posts: 21678
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Go Fluvia. That's awesome, and the photo at the beginning of the thread is lovely. I want to see more!
Model
theda
Posts: 21719
New York, New York, US
Photographer
BAdept Photos
Posts: 97
Anaheim, California, US
She's beautiful. I would love it if plus size models end up in magazines more...I think she's hot.
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Sita Mae wrote:
Go Fluvia. That's awesome, and the photo at the beginning of the thread is lovely. I want to see more! yes I'm wondering if there are more pictures, maybe it's just that one. Not sure, but I'll be on the lookout for more
Model
Anushka Bella
Posts: 345
Phillipsburg, Sint Maarten, Netherlands Antilles
It's so nice to see this thread on the right track....FINALLY! Sheesh!!! Once again: Yay Fluvia!!!
Photographer
Jonathan Combs
Posts: 42
MC KEE, Kentucky, US
My understanding is that Brazil is not only more accepting of full-figured women, but that what many in the US consider plus-size are considered desirable there. Its not a surprise to see the model chosen for Brazilian Playboy. It would be great to see her, or someone similar, featured in the US version. Maybe that would be a small step towards correcting our unhealthy preference for super-thin women.
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 8020
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Photographer
S
Posts: 21678
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
I know who Fluvia is, that's not what I meant. I meant more Fluvia in Playboy.
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
She is beautiful...wow. I love her look.
I hate all the nonsense in this thread.
But I love her.
Thanks for the post. I wish more women like her would grace Playboy's pages. I don't care for the skinny non-curvy girls that I see in there from time to time.
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
QuietAsKept wrote:
Fluvia is gorgeous. Until today, I didn't know that there was a Brazilian Playboy Magazine. Almost makes me want to submit to one of the international editions lol I find the International Editions to be much better than the American version. The women are more diverse, curvier and have a sultry look to them. Not to say there aren't beautiful women in the American version, but the type of women I like to see in Playboy frequently are in French, Italian, or something other than American Playboy.
Model
Vera van Munster
Posts: 4095
Belmont, North Carolina, US
JEEBUS!
Vintage sizes, are NOWHERE near sizes we have today.
I buy and sell vintage clothing.I've collected them for more than 10 years.I wear vintage clothing myself.Just about ALL of my blouses, are a "Size 14" and have a 34 inch bust.
Stop the madness!!! _end rant_
..Oh and I'm 5'5 ( 34-25-36). I'm obviously not plus sized & I wear a vintage size 14-16.
Model
Amelia Talon
Posts: 1472
Seattle, Washington, US
Cherilyn Fontaine wrote:
I'm 5'8" and my hips are 35"...my jeans are an 8. No friggin way 35" hips are putting their ass into a 0 even if they are stretch denim that isn't happening. I'm 5'7" with 36 inch hips and I fit a size 3-5, so I guess hip size means nothing to pants size.
Model
chitownmodel09
Posts: 190
Chicago, Illinois, US
Cherilyn Fontaine wrote:
I'm 5'8" and my hips are 35"...my jeans are an 8. No friggin way 35" hips are putting their ass into a 0 even if they are stretch denim that isn't happening. that's what i was confused about I'm 5'8 and my hips are 38" I wear a 10 or bigger depending on the jeans
anyways back to topic... she's gorgeous I think the US Playboy needs to look into using these kinds of models as well!
Photographer
Dan Hudson
Posts: 506
Binghamton, New York, US
Rebecca B wrote:
Ouch. that's not very nice at all. bully for you. Rebeca... Do not listen to bullying ... I would love to shoot with you (60's & 70's style Playboy and Pin-up) any day of the week!!!
|
