This Is Not Marilyn

A few weeks ago, this image replaced images of women in black and red PVC bodysuits as advertisements for Montreal's sex boutique Sexe Cité. I love the fact that sex stores in Montreal advertise in the metro, and that no one here gets offended that the kiddies might see something they're not supposed to.

The image itself, however, makes me want to claw my eyes out.

I'm not going to get into the issue of whether or not North America's most recognisable sex symbol would or would not have worn plus-sized clothes today. Completely unconfirmed internet research puts her measurements somewhere in the vicinity of 37"-23"-36" Any woman who's shopped for clothes in a mall knows that that's definitely in the large/extra-large range. I don't really care if she would have been a size 16, or a size 12, or even a size 10, but I think any less than that is stretching the point.

It offends me the way that this image of a lush, curved, sexy woman has been co-opted into a stick figure. It offends me most that this emaciated model is considered more sexy than her iconic progenitor.

This is not to say that thin women cannot be attractive. Some are, certainly. Though it's not as if that's something you hear every day. Every media image out there of what a woman "should" look like reinforces society's views, and not mine. We can all quote facts and statistics - about Barbie, about supermodels, about the smooth, thin legs of pre-pubescent girls passed off as those of adults - they're not important. We know that society's idea of beauty is impossibly skewed. There's only so much reminding that we can do.

If you see this ad, please be disgusted. Even if you do nothing about it, if you don't even mention it, blog about it, or write an angry letter to the company about it, please be disgusted. Hold a company morally responsible in your own heart for its part in arbitrarily setting beauty standards and dividing women from each other.