Stop Using Normal to Describe Plus Size Models

I get it. Seeing a model with hips like Barbie Ferreira in a hot pink bikini for Aerie is still a Six Flags-level thrill for most people. Curvy models are finally enjoying some (well-deserved) time in the spotlight right now, and that’s awesome.

With all the hype surrounding these models that are blessing their way into the mainstream, I’ve also noticed a trend that plucks my nerves. With a handful of body positive articles on curvy models who represent the majority also comes the word “normal” to describe their bodies.

In an article for Jezebel, they state in the headline that Barbie has a “normal” body. In this article for Self, our very own Iskra Lawrence has, they note, a “normal” body. In the past, Ashley Graham has been said to have a “normal” body type. And Kylie Jenner‘s BFF and curve model Jordyn Woods told Today that curve models have “more normal” bodies than other models.

So what? You might ask. When has being “normal” ever been a bad thing? And it’s not that the word is bad or even wrong. But it’s another exclusive and unnecessary label to throw on a torso.“Normal” is a word that is meant to be inclusive. I get it. But in reality, it’s totally the opposite. It creates a divide. It says that anyone with a body type bigger or smaller than Barbie, Iskra, Ashley, or whatever given curvy model you’re drooling over is, in somebody’s opinion, NOT normal.

It’s mostly a problem because “normal” is a subjective term. I think it’s normal that my cats use my forehead as a springboard while I’m sleeping, but that’s probably not normal for anyone else. Similarly, what body types are considered “normal” to someone might depend on where in the world he or she is scrolling the web.

I get what people mean when they say someone looks “normal” and realize it’s an easy word to fall back on. People who use the word to describe curvy models mean to say that similar types of bodies exist in large quantities. These bodies are common in society. They’re saying, hey, Ashley Graham looks like a lot of us, and she’s happy and healthy, and it’s nice to see her getting her life in Sports Illustrated. It’s NORMAL to see someone who looks like her walking down the street. But “normal” is not a word we should be projecting onto her thighs, unless we make it a universal term and throw it on every size model ranging from Kendall Jenner to Tess Holliday.

Bob

People need to just get over the fact that body types are labelled in the modelling world. The standard fashion body type for a woman in the industry is tall and thin, if someone in the industry wants to hire someone that’s not tall or not thin then they need a way to describe them. Plus size is an industry term and is not meant to apply to the general population.
You’re right about dropping “Normal” as these body acceptance people are just making people who are not this new normal size feel bad, and in some cases leads to bullying.
- Stella
  
  But the modeling world body type labelings don’t make people that don’t match the label feel bad, and lead to bullying? It’s only the body acceptance people that causes this?
- Liverpool Patti
  
  The fashion industry is not going to use models who aren’t not tall and thin. Clothes look better on this type of figure and they are in the business of selling clothes.
  - Sean Legge
    
    Except, the industry IS using models who aren’t tall and thin! The article includes links to stories about plus size models Bishamber Das and Ashley Graham. The names of Barbie Ferreira and Jordyn Woods appear in the article in bold; they, too, are curve models. Heck, even some of the ADS for this article feature plus size women!
  - Stella
    
    The clothes made for tall and thing look better on tall and thin than they do on other body types. But if the clothes are made to fit the body type, regardless of that type, they will look good. The problem is that the clothes aren’t being made to fit other body types than tall and thin.
Fonzy

I agree. We need to get the word Normal removed from the dictionary so people who think they might not fall into said categories of normal do not feel bad.
‘Oh these arent the seasoned fries theyre the normal fries……WELL WHAT ISN’T NORMAL ABOUT BEING SPRINKLED WITH DELICIOUS CAJUN SEASONINGS HUH!?’
Beelzebub

I’d bang the brunette and blonde.
takemeimyours

But what about the thin womenz?
robertoV05

Sounds like you want this to be an “ideal” world. Don’t you know any better by now?
- Cindy Baker
  
  Is it always raining in your world?
Sean Legge

“Plus size” is as much a label as “normal”, but using the latter to describe the former is just an acknowledgement that the statistics of the models who are put in this box (average weight, average waist size, etc.) are closer to the corresponding population parameters than those who are not put in this box.
- Sandra Brady
  
  I am getting a salary of 5900 dollars each week. Over a year ago I was in a horrible condition , jobless and no bank credit . Thanks to one of my friends who showed me a way where I was able to gather myself and making average of 59 d/h. So it can change your life as it has changed mine.
  
  To Discover More Click Here
  yh….
MrEightEx

Wouldn’t it make more sense for “normal” to be what is common? If “plus-size” is normal (and in the US I think it is) then it should be called normal. Seems logical to me.
- Squinty
  
  No. The problem with “normal” is that it isn’t synonymous with common. Normal is a spectrum that INCLUDES common, but isn’t limited to it. It’s what is common + outliers that aren’t common, but still part of the spectrum of human body shapes.
  Just like being a ginger isn’t common, but is normal; or how being tall isn’t common but is normal, and so on.
I felt Joe Concha’s Banhammer

Can we say “She’s a little fat, but that’s OK”? Those women are fat, overweight, whatever you want to call it (and so am I.) We can be accepting of that, but why lie and say it is “normal”? Typical, might be a better descriptor.
- Sean Legge
  
  It is good that you have reclaimed the word “fat”, like Camryn Manheim did in the acceptance speech for her 1998 Emmy, but you should know that it is now considered derogatory.
Walter

Maybe we need more objective terms for describing peoples body types.
PretenderNx01

Is this one of those “skinny girls are normal too” articles? Like #WhiteLivesMatter :p

Normal is common, regular and normalized and let’s be real, curvy is more common than skinny and skinny is frequently “achieved” in an unhealthy manner. So yeah, she has a normal body.

FYI, it’s over the idealized-weight people who have been made to feel abnormal more often, so saying they are “normal” is a positive thing.
alexm

Can we acknowledge that no one in the fashion industry is ‘normal’ and that it takes a superhuman effort of makeup, lighting, hairstyling and various other things to create these photos, and that even in your ‘candid’ selfie shots, those are still women who competed with many other women to be in that role. They’re still models. It’s great to see variety in the industry, but that’s still hardly representative of the average. What about all the naturally thin girls, or the…less endowed ones, or anyone who varies from this perceived ‘normal’. So unless we’re referring to the fact that they are human women as opposed to say, aliens, I think normal, while its intended use is fine, and continued use is probably also fine, should come with the understanding of what that actually means, referring to ‘plus-size’ models, as opposed to normal meaning ‘is what you’re supposed to look like’.

Eliza Dillard