Don't you?
Let's look at this one here, shall we?
Let's take a closer look. This looks like an attractive enough woman in the year 1963.Agree?
Let's take an even closer look. Apparently standards in body image or clothing sizes --or maybe simply just vocabulary--have changed in that many years. Their catalog says "fashions for larger women".
Really?
Did they accidentally use the wrong models' photo shoot for this cover?
Ok.
Let's go in for some details here. Maybe I am just a little confused. Little. Maybe I should say slight.... er, maybe tiny. Oh crap. Let's get on with it.
38-60.
Are they talking about their tablecloth measurements for their dining room table? They certainly aren't talking about these models.
Ok stop, to be fair, the hourglass silhouette that girdles and bullet bras gave these women may have a disillusioning effect on the over-all look of a dress. But still--I think this represents models with 38 as the high end measurement category.
False representation? Cause to starve yourself to compete?
You decide.
Also, does anyone ever still use the vocabulary word= hose? My grandma did. Vocabulary certainly changes over time and through eras of society.
Sorry, the time has expired (a few decades or so) to send for your free style booklet.
" for STOUT Women" !!!
2 comments:
Hi Amy! Haven't seen you in a while. I hope everything is okay in your part of Ohio. I'm a mom....and I worry!!! xoxoxoxo
Hey Amy,
trying to get caught up with you and spewed coffee out of my nose looking at these ads. One extra thought about sizes - back then, sizing was wayyyyyy different. When I was 13, I was in a size 16. Not by today's standard but by mid 60 standard. I think the equilvalent to today's size that would have made me a size 10 back then. Would that I could fit in ANY size 10 today.
Post a Comment