Fashion Theory by Dominica Baird

Fashion and the Thin Ideal: The Impact on Body Image and the Marginalization of the Plus-Size Consumer Dominica Baird Professor Denis Antoine Fashion Theory-FASH-782-OL May 28, 2015

Introduction This paper examines the underserved market of plus-size fashion and studies the ways in which the fashion industry overlooks and marginalizes the plus-size customer. While the majority of American women are now plus-size, they have limited options when it comes to clothing, which is typically relegated to small areas in the back of clothing stores and ignored by fashion magazines. Examining the beliefs and attitudes towards plus-size women that are held by society and the fashion industry is critical toward the understanding about the resulting lack of quality, well-fitting plus-size clothing available for sizes 14 and above. Historically, society has a difficult relationship with the fat body. In many ways, thinness and the limiting oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s food intake have symbolized self-control and piousness, however, excess weight has also symbolized wealth and status. It wasn't until modern society began to enjoy excess quantities of food, along with the resulting weight gain, that being overweight became widely frowned upon. Changing attitudes towards the body were also influenced by womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing roles in society throughout history. For example, major shifts in the fashion silhouette as well as the standards for ideal bodied shifted significantly around the periods of 1912-1919 and 1967-1964. These periods were both marked by womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing roles in society as well as major political and cultural shifts. The fashion industry and media have mirrored the cultural attitudes surrounding the ideal figure and only served to magnify negative stereotypes. In addition to the lack of plus size options, negative stereotypes about plus-size women and an unrealistic thin ideal are perpetually depicted in the pages of fashion magazines. 2

Accordingly, this paper will address the following research questions: 1. In what ways is the plus-size market underserved? 2. How has the historic equation of thinness and self-control influenced the modern views of the plus-size woman? 3. How have fashions shifted along with societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing body ideals? 4. How did the rise of conspicuous leisure affect fashion and the ideal figure? 5. How has the cultural idealization of thinness shifted in response to womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing roles in society? 6. How do the contemporary fashion and media industries influence current body ideals?

The Underserved Plus-Size Market Over the past few decades, the number of plus-size consumers has been steadily rising, however, many feel excluded by the fashion industry. For instance, the average American woman is approximately 25 pounds heavier than she was in 1960 ("The Funny Math of Clothing Sizes"), and the most frequently worn size in America is now a now a size 14. As a result, the majority of American women (67 percent) now fall under plus-size standards1 (Peters 50). In our market-driven economy, it would make sense that the fashion industry would be rushing to cater to this burgeoning market, however, this is not the case. A cursory look at clothing sales figures indicates that plussize fashion only makes up a tiny portion of clothing sales. Specifically, plus-size fashion only makes up 9 percent of the $190 billion that is spent annually on clothing ("The Funny Math of Clothing Sizes"). While plus-size customers should be a powerful consumer base, survey after survey indicates that plus-size customers are disappointed with their lack of options. Frequent complaints range from problems with fit, the lack of fashionable styles and poor quality (Scaraboto 1238). A recent survey of 1,500 women conducted for the retailer, Modcloth, supports this. The survey reported that plus-size women found shopping to be generally frustrating (Fig. 1) and that 80 percent of the plus-size women polled indicated that they would spend more on apparel if they could find flattering clothes (Lutz).

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plus-size fashion has typically been defined as clothing from size 14 up to 72 (Scaraboto 1238).

Fig. 1. Infographic from ModCloth’s survey of 1,500 women on plus-size fashion. Source: Business Insider

Market research further suggests that the problem is widespread. In response to a 2009 Mintel study of the plus-size market, David Lockwell, the director of research, noted: “There is not a deep range of styles in stores devoted to plus-size. They’ll pick up on a singe trend, it will dominate the floor space and that will be that (Bellefonte).

Additionally, Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst for NPD Group, stated: “The plus-size business is often regarded as tertiary, a step-child. Retailers don’t nurture the business…so it leaves few players in the end.” (Scaraboto 1238). Adding to consumer frustration, plus-size departments are frequently small spaces hidden in the back of stores. Similarly, retailer’s ambivalence towards plus-size is further symbolized by cagey terminology. For example, many retailers, including Neiman Marcus, refer to the category as “women’s,” while Lane Bryant’s sister brand, Catherine’s, employs the perplexing phrase, “exclusives.” (Bellefonte). Despite the fact that survey after survey reports that some of the top concerns of plus-size shoppers are the difficulties of sizing and fit (Bellefonte; Conely; Sender), many stores are pulling plus-sizes from the sales floor and only offering them online (Alexander 4). For instance, J. Crew, Ann Taylor and Old Navy have all recently moved plus-sizes from brick and mortar stores to be sold exclusively online (Bellafonte; Lockwood). This practice is only adds to the plus-size consumer’s frustration with fit and her unwelcoming shopping experience. While a handful of youth-oriented, mass-market retailers such as Asos, Mango, ModCloth and Forever 21 have begun selling plus-sizes2 (Meltzer), few, if any designer or luxury brands even offer sizes 12 or 14 (Kroge; Merkin, “Why is the fashion industry ignoring the plus-size market?”). Nevertheless, a handful of designer brands have ventured into plus-sizes, but most of them quickly fizzled out. Elie Tahari and Marc Jacobs are two such examples (Bellafante).

Notably, H&M has stopped selling plus-sizes in the US altogether (Bellafonte).

The Historic Equation of Thinness with Self-Control In order to get a better understanding of the modern difficulties facing plus-size consumers, it is important to look at society’s attitudes toward the body over time. While the standards of what constitutes the ideal figure have varied greatly through the years, historically, Western culture has viewed the body as a symbol of one’s own moral character (Thompson 144). Fasting for spiritual purification was an important part of Christianity during the Middle Ages. This form of diet was used as a tool to become closer to God and was therefore reserved only the for powerful members of the church or the wealthy (Bordo 185). Philosophers viewed fasting as a tool to develop the inner self, and as, “an arena in which the deepest possibilities for human excellence may be realized. For example, Augustine, Descartes and Plato all taught that one should gain control over their own body. Part of this control was achieved by the ignoring of one’s desires and hungers (Bordo 145). It is important to note that despite these religious and philosophical ideals surrounding the body’s connection to moral character, from premodern times up until the late nineteenth century, a fat figure was associated closely with wealth, fertility and health (Farrell 663; Merkin). In order to maintain a high weight, one would have to be able to afford an excess of food as well as an abundance of leisure time. As a result, excess weight was often linked to high status (Fig. 2) and was viewed as a symbol of affluence much in the same way living in a large mansion is (Farrell 633-637).

Fig. 2. The protruding belly in this Life magazine cartoon from 1908 symbolizes the family’s wealth. Source: Fat Shame, p 307.

Attitudes about fat began to change in the during the nineteenth century when the growing middle class became more sedentary due to less physically demanding jobs, greater availability of food and better transportation systems. As a result, people’s bodies began to increase in size. This time period marked the end of fat as a status symbol and the beginning of fat as a cultural problem (Farrell 872-877). As our modern population of well-fed people with access to an over-abundance of food has developed, fat has become increasingly marginalized (Merkin). Excess body weight became a reflection of “moral or personal inadequacy, or lack of will.” (Bordo 192). In today’s culture, consumers are expected to carefully control their

physical appearance—part of this is achieved by controlling the amount and types of food one consumes (Thompson 144). As a result, the “perfect body” is equated with the “good life”. The associated affluence then correlates to success, control and autonomy (Dittmar 24). Accordingly, the overweight are considered to be in opposition to the traditional American values of hard work and discipline (Taub 68). They are viewed as gluttonous, irresponsible and unable to exert self-control (Rodier 173). Thinness, on the other hand, has maintained some of its historic class associations—for example: “A woman can never be too rich or too thin.” (Bordo 193). The equation of fat with lack of will power and laziness caused excess weight to be viewed as both a social and health problem. The stigma of fatness in combination with American’s growing waistlines3 led to the modern day fight against the “obesity epidemic” that was spearheaded by US Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, in the 1990s. Changing Fashions and The Thin Ideal Through the Ages Throughout history, major shifts in fashion and body ideals have corresponded to times of great social change. As a result, the “anxiety over women’s uncontrollable hungers” seems to increase during the times where women are asserting themselves both politically and socially (Bordo 161). For example, the standards for the ideal body shifted significantly around the periods of 1912-1919 and 1967-1964. These periods were both marked by women’s changing roles in society as well as political and cultural shifts (Gamman 292). 3

According to the National Institute of Health, two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese (nih.gov).

From mid 1880s to 1908, a curvy, hourglass shape was the ideal figure. This figure symbolized maternal femininity with its emphasis on the female reproduction (breast and hips) and a “fragile wasp waist.” (Bordo 208). The look was achieved through bustle skirts and a “tighter corset than ever before” (Fig. 3) and came into fashion at the time that suffragettes were encouraging women towards the right to vote and “legal emancipation” (Bordo 162). Women were encumbered with long skirts in heavy fabrics and painful corsets that limited their ability to move freely (Tortora 385). The confining nature of women’s clothing was a direct reflection on their place in society where their role was limited to being a wife and mother.

Fig. 3. Gibson, Charles. Gibson Girl. Circa 1900. New York Public Library. Image accessed from Berg Fashion Library.

Consequently, as mid-century feminists began to organize for the right to vote, confining fashions began to be seen as a symbol of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s oppression. This led to efforts towards dress reform led by the suffragists. The Bloomer costume (Fig 4), named after Amelia Bloomer, was developed to free women from the confines of multiple layers of petticoats, bustles and corsets (Kesselman 496). The Bloomer costume consisted of a full-skirted dress that stopped around knee-length that was worn over full trousers.

Fig. 4. Amelia Bloomer wearing the Bloomer Costume. A Survey of Historic Costume. p 359.

There was a departure from the hourglass ideal and the curvy S-shape in the 1890s to a more vertical, boyish figure in the 1920s (Stewart 175). 1920s was also a time of great social changeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;particularly for women. Traditionally, women were expected to adhere to certain standards of behavior. The flappers of the era (Fig. 5) defied these rules by smoking, drinking and dancing with men into the wee hours of the night. Fashion of the 1920s reflected these changes (Tortora 449). Corsets and long dresses were abandoned for sack dresses that hid the waist and showed off the wearerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arms and legs. This brought on a new body ideal that favored skinny flappers who bound their breasts and wore girdles to reduce the size of their hips in order to achieve a more boyish figure (Almond 206; Farrell 614).

Fig. 5. Held, John. Cover Illustration, Life magazine, February 18, 1926. Image accessed from ArtStor

The increasing importance of leisure exercise in the early part of the twentieth century also had a major impact on fashions and the ideal body (Arnold 345, Stewart 177). Corsets became impractical while a more boyish, athletic body came into fashion. The new silhouette was marketed as the “modern woman,” whose slim body was a symbol of her active lifestyle (Stewart 175). Sports stars of the era, such as tennis player, Suzanne Lenglen, also had a great impact on clothing styles. Lenglen’s showing at the 1919 Wimbledon games greatly influenced the tennis wear of the time. The style shifted from bustle skirts and long “garden-party” dresses to emulate Lenglen’s loose, calf-length chemises worn without corsets over a petticoat (Fig 6.) (Stewart 175).

Fig. 6. “Suzanne Lenglen Shows How to Dress for Tennis.” Vogue December 1926. Image accessed from Vogue archives.

The hourglass shape did not come back into fashion until after the second World War when middle class women transitioned from working back to homemaking. When society returned to the traditional roles of the housewife and breadwinner husband, obvious body differentiation occurred once again in fashion. This ushered in an era of cinched waists and push up bras. Marilyn Monroe’s voluptuous curves (Fig 7.) were considered the era’s ideal shape (Bordo 208).

Fig. 7. Marilyn Monroe. Images accessed from marilynmonroe.com

The 1960s were also a time of great social change and unrest. The civil rights movement, war in Vietnam and second wave feminist movement were all major influences society. Consequently, womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fashion shifted dramatically from the 1950s feminine, housewife styles to a more androgynous look (Tortora 534-537). Skinny bodies that resembled adolescent boys replaced the feminine curves of the 1950s (Gamman 292). Boxy mini dresses showed off lanky legs and left the waist undefined. The extremely thin models of the era, Twiggy (Fig. 8) and Jean Shrimpton, represented 15

major departure from their voluptuous predecessors Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth and Jane Mansfield.

Fig. 8. Drysdale, J. Twiggy with mannequins by Adel Rootstein. 1966. The Fashion Book. London: Phaidon, 1998.

The 1980s ushered in an era during which women were increasingly urged to exercise and maintain a thin body. Jane Fonda (Fig 9.) was one of the inspirations for the decade’s ideal of a fit, trim body that was achieved through aerobics (Yiannakis 242). As the aerobics craze grew in the 1980s, exercise clothing became increasingly more body conscious. Brightly colored Spandex workout wear became a status symbol as it served to showcase the wearer’s lean body. (Top 25 Fitness Fashion Fads: 1985-2009).

Fig. 9. Jane Fonda’s Lean Routine Workout. 1992. Image accessed from amazon.com

In the decades following the 1960s, an overall thinness has remained the ideal shape. While fashions have changed, a thin, androgynous body type (Fig 10.) has remained ideal. In the last twenty years female figures portrayed in the media have shown a decrease in weight, bust and hips, with a slight increase in wast size. This figure is unrealistic for most women as less than five percent of Western women are thought to be genetically predisposed to meet this modern ideal (Gamman 292; Bissell ).

CK One ad circa 1993. Image accessed from calvinklein.com

The contemporary ideal of thinness expresses the traditional feminine ideals of a fragility while the lack of space taken up by the body can symbolize the restriction of women’s power and status. On the other hand, the thin body can also represent the masculine traits of self-control and emotional restraint. The androgynous body can be seen as a rebellion against domestic femininity. All of these values are important to women as they have worked to integrate into male dominated careers (Lovejoy 245).

Fashion and Media Influence Over Modern Body Ideals Fashion not only reflects society’s negative attitudes towards fat, it actually reinforces them. Merkin (2010) points out the struggle between the reality of actual human bodies in opposition with fashion’s impossibly thin ideal: Fashion, which has always been as much a narrative about the body as it is about clothes, has rarely taken kindly to the idea of flesh. Much as we may wax nostalgic about the Rubenesque ideal or the buxom, wide-hipped wenches of Restoration comedies, in its modern iteration fashion has steadily downsized the human scale. Flesh suggests messiness, privileging the indiscipline of life over the fierce control of art, the unaerobicized body spilling over the contours of an artificial silhouette, be it Christian Dior’s New Look in 1947 or Marc Jacobs’s New Look for Louis Vuitton this fall. Fashion designer, Karl Lagerfeld has been very public with his disdain for the overweight and his belief that curvy women have no place in fashion. The designer once told Focus magazine, “No one wants to see curvy women…You’ve got fat mothers with their bags of chips sitting in front of the television and saying that thin models are ugly.” (Akhtar). Extremely thin fashion models such as Twiggy, Jean Shrimpton and Kate Moss have long symbolized fashion’s unrealistic and oppressive standards of beauty. Making matters worse, the women featured in ads are becoming increasingly thinner and more 19

removed from the reality of the average woman. For example, the average American woman is 5’4” and 140 pounds while average American model is 5’11” and 117 pounds (Gustafson). Today’s top fashion models are often as much as twenty percent underweight. This is striking when considering that being fifteen percent underweight is one of the criteria used to diagnose anorexia nervosa (Dittmar 24). Even store mannequins, which are cast from the bodies of fashion models, have been found to have unhealthy proportions. So much that they “probably not be able to menstruate” if they were real women because they would be too thin to be capable of doing so (Dwyer 409). The excessively thin standards for models remain the norm despite the fact that recent studies have indicated that average size models can be just as effective, if not more effective in efforts to connect with consumers. Indeed, a study in the Journal of Psychology and Marketing revealed that average size models were frequently rated as more attractive when compared to their thinner counterparts (Bissell 3). With this in mind, the social comparison theory supports this concept as it suggests that people look at realistic and attainable images favorably because they are able to compare themselves favorably to those images. On the other hand, when women look at idealized images, they instead focus on the importance of being thin and how unattainable those images are from their own reality (Bissell 3). Most plus-size models are “only ambiguously fat.” For example, the most frequently booked models on plus size boards usually range in size from 6-14. The explanation is that consumers “do not want to buy clothes that associate them with stigmatized bodies.” (Rodier 174).

Sarah Conley, a plus-size blogger and retail consultant explains that when consumers request that retailers feature more plus-size models, the companies will often conduct tests by showing the same style on both a size 8 and size 14 model to see how sales are affected. According to Conley, “The size 8 model translated into more sales nearly every time.” (Conley 2014). Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated created a media buzz with its inclusion of a “plus-size model” within the pages of the publication’s annual Swimsuit Edition (Fig 11). However, many people were perplexed as to why the obviously fit, size 12 model was even considered plus-size (Weisman).

Fig. 11. Macari, James. Plus-size model, Robyn Lawley featured in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. 2015. Image accessed from si.com.

The media can be seen as partially responsible for today’s omnipresent desire for thinness (Bissell; Shaw 15). While the media’s ideal body is becoming increasingly thinner, there are also a lack of diverse of body types being shown portrayed in the media. (Bissell). The media inundates women with a steady stream of images that suggest that to be attractive and successful, one must be extremely thin. Cultural theorist, Jean Kilbourne, has analyzed the portrayal of women in American ads since the 1960s and has determined that, “The pressure on women to be young, thin, beautiful is more intense than ever before.” Kilbourne cites the false reality created by Photoshop as a tool for advertisers to create images of women that are not realistic. Women’s bodies are objectified by these false expectations and they also distort society’s outlook on the female body (Reissman). These unrealistic body standards were typified by a recent Victoria’s Secret marketing campaign. The lingerie company came under fire for its 2014 advertisements emblazoned with the words, “The Perfect Body.” The ads featured ten very thin models, many of whom had visible ribs (Fig 12). The images sparked a social media backlash and the slogan was later changed to “A Body for Every Body.” (Brown).

Fig. 12. “The Perfect Body,” by Victoria’s Secret. Image accessed from: abcnews.go.com.

Conclusion The plus-size industry has failed to keep up with the times because it has been heavily influenced by societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long history of embracing a thin ideal. Sales indicate that plus-size consumers, who now make up the majority of American women, are frustrated with their shopping experiences because of the lack of fashionable, well-fitting plus-size clothing. Retailers have not been successful in their efforts to appease the plus-size consumer and seem to be doing their best to further alienate her. This is evidenced by the way in which plus-size fashion is merchandised in storesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;if it is even available on the sales floor at all. The underserved plus-size market can be linked to societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s difficult relationship with excess weight. This is because, in many ways, thinness has historically been associated with self-control. While on the other hand, excess weight was long viewed as symbol of wealth. Once our society had a long-term over-abundance of food, a thin body became idealized while overweight bodies came to symbolize a lack of self-control and laziness. As a result, in the decades following the 1950s, the idea body has been not only thin, it has become more androgynous, and less curvy. Fashion designers and the fashion industry not only reflect this way of thinking, they actually magnify it. In addition to the refusal to address the needs of the plus-size customer, negative comments about plus-size women from designers such as Karl Lagerfeld and a constant barrage of images of very thin models can be seen as proof that fashion is no place for the overweight. These negative attitudes have also likely contributed to the lack of designers and brands that are willing to focus on the plus size customer. The lack of quality, well fitting

plus size options are a product of the negative cultural attitudes towards fat. Ultimately, fashion designers and the media are not the ones to blame for the marginalization of the plus-size customer as they are merely reflecting societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long-standing ambivalence to excess weight and the female body.

References Akhtar, Amina. "Karl Lagerfeld Does Not Like Big Girls. Are You Surprised?" The Cut. New York Magazine, 12 Oct. 2009. Web. 29 May 2015. Alexander, Marina, Gina R. Pisut, and Andrada Ivanescu. "Investigating Women's Plussize Body Measurements and Hip Shape Variation Based on SizeUSA Data." International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 5.1 (2012): 3-12. Print. Almond, Kevin. "Fashionably Voluptuous: Repackaging the Fuller-Sized Figure." Fashion Theory 17.2 (2013): 197-222. Print. amazon.com Arnold, Rebecca. "Movement and Modernity: New York Sportswear, Dance, and Exercise in the 1930s and 1940s." Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body &amp; Culture 12.3 (2008): 341-57. Print. Bellafante, Gina. "Plus-Size Wars." The New York Times. 31 July 2010. Web. 28 May 2015. Berg Fashion Library Bissell, Kimberly, and Amy Rask. "Ideal, and Perceptions of Attractiveness and Thiness in Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty." International Journal of Advertising 29.4 (2010). Print. Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. 10th Anniversary ed. Berkeley, Calif.: U of California, 2004. Print. Brown, Genevieve. "Victoria's Secret Changes Controversial 'Perfect Body' Slogan." ABC News. ABC News Network, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 May 2015. calvinklein.com 26

Conley, Sarah. "One Problem With Plus-Size Fashion: Customers Aren't Buying It." Time. 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 May 2015. Dittmar, Helga. "The Costs of Consumer Culture and the “Cage Within”: The Impact of the Material “Good Life” and “Body Perfect” Ideals on Individuals” Identity and Well-Being." Psychological Inquiry 18.1 (2007): 23-31. Print. Dwyer, Angela. "Disorder Or Delight? Towards A New Account Of The Fashion Model Body." Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body &amp; Culture 8.4 (2004): 405-23. Print. Farrell, Amy Erdman. Fat Shame: Stigma and the Fat Body in American Culture. New York, NY: New York UP, 2011. Print. "Fashion: Suzanne Lenglen Shows How to Dress for Tennis." Vogue 1 Dec. 1926: 64-65. Print. Gamman, Lorraine, and Merja Makinen. Female Fetishism. Washington Square, N.Y.: New York UP, 1995. Print. Gustafson, Robert. "The 'thin Ideal.'.(study on Harmful Female Stereotypes in Advertising)." Marketing News. 15 Mar. 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Kesselman, A. "The "Freedom Suit": Feminism and Dress Reform in the United States, 1848-1875." Gender &amp; Society 5.4 (1991): 495-510. Print. Kroger, Susan. "Serving Women of All Sizes Has Business Benefits." The Business of Fashion. 12 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 May 2015. Lovejoy, M. "DISTURBANCES IN THE SOCIAL BODY: Differences In Body Image And Eating Problems Among African American And White Women." Gender &amp; Society 15.2 (2001): 239-61. Print.

Lutz, Ashley. "The Plus-Size Industry Is On The Verge Of A Revolution." Business Insider. 23 June 2014. Web. 28 May 2015. marilynmonroe.com Meltzer, Marisa. "Plus-Size Fashion Moves Beyond the Muumuu." The New York Times. 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 28 May 2015. Merkin, Daphne. "The F Word." The New York Times. 21 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Peters, Lauren Downing. "You Are What You Wear: How Plus-Size Fashion Figures in Fat Identity Formation." Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body &amp; Culture 18.1 (2014): 45-72. Print. Reissman, Hailey. "The Dangerous Ways Ads See Women." TEDx Innovations Blog. TED, 27 May 2015. Web. 28 May 2015. Rodier, Kristin. "Clothing the Lived Fat Body." Clothing Cultures 1.2 (2014): 171-78. Print. Scaraboto, Daiane, and Eileen Fischer. "Frustrated Fatshionistas: An Institutional Theory Perspective on Consumer Quests for Greater Choice in Mainstream Markets." Journal of Consumer Research 39.6 (2013): 1234-257. Print. Sender, Tamara. "Plus-Size Is a Huge Growth Opportunity." The Business of Fashion. 12 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 May 2015. si.com Stewart, Mary Lynn, and Nancy Janovicek. "Slimming the Female Body?: Re-evaluating Dress, Corsets, and Physical Culture in France, 1890sâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;1930s." Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body &amp; Culture 5.2 (2001): 173-93. Print. Taub, Diane. "Review: Revolting Bodies? The Struggle to Redefine Fat Identity." Contemporary Sociology 34.6 (2005): 677-79. Print. 28

"The Funny Math of Clothing Sizes." The Business of Fashion. The Associated Press, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 May 2015. The Fashion Book. First ed. London: Phaidon, 1998. Print. Thompson, Craig J., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. "Understanding The Socialized Body: A Poststructuralist Analysis Of Consumers' Self-Conceptions, Body Images, And Self-Care Practices." Journal of Consumer Research 22.2 (1995): 139-53. Print. "Top 25 Fitness Fashion Fads: 1985-2009." ACE Fit. The America Council on Exercise, 2012. Web. 28 May 2015. Tortora, Phyllis G., and Keith Eubank. A Survey of Historic Costume. Fifth ed. New York: Fairchild Publications, 2010. Print. Wallerstein, Katharine. "Thinness and Other Refusals in Contemporary Fashion Advertisements." Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body &amp; Culture 2.2 (1998): 129-50. Print. Weisman, Aly. "People Are Outraged That This Sports Illustrated Model Is Considered Plus-size." Business Insider. 6 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 May 2015. "Why Is the Fashion Industry Ignoring the Plus-size Market?" The Business of Fashion. 12 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 May 2015. Yiannakis, Andrew. Contemporary Issues in Sociology of Sport. Rev. ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2001. Print.