First size 16 COVER MODEL of Sports Illustrated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are crazy. That woman is gorgeous, and not at all "chunky" - curvy, yes. She is probably a size 16 because she is 6 feet tall, making her the equivalent of a size 8 on an average height 5'4" woman. The interesting part to me is that she doesn't really have muscle definition (although I have never seen an SI cover before so I have no idea if the models usually do).

+1

She isn't overweight, I am guessing, just tall. Nor is she thin. I think more size 6-8 women of more normal height would also be awesome (hello Marilyn Monroe?). But this is definitely a great variation from the 00 monotony we tend to live with.

[Anonymous]

Isn't the average sized woman a 12 or 14?

I haven't been a 6 or 8 sense I was in my 20's. And I had to eat *very* little to maintain that size..

[Anonymous]

^since

[Anonymous]

I don't know. I think this is going the other direction in a more extreme way. I agree that the 00 skeletors out there are not attractive, but SI could have used a size 6/8 model. I too will be interested to see how many copies they sell. I know men like curves, but to a point. I can only speak for my dh. He would find her face pretty, but not her body.

[Anonymous]

The thing is that she is size 16 but her fat is in all the right places. She has a flat tummy, no stretch marks, no bulges, no cellulite, no double chin.

Yes, she is surely not waif thin like previous models, but she is not the representative size 16. Nice try SI, but you are not going to out Mama June on the cover now, are you?

[Anonymous]

She has a beautiful face, but she's fat. Not sexy at all. I'd be interested in seeing their sales too.

[Anonymous]

She is incredibly sexy, has a voluptuous, feminine figure. Have you seen how small her waist is? No tummy bulge, no mom pooch. She is tall and not model thin, but she is stunning

Having said that, size 16 women do not have that kind of figure and face. So she is not representative of her size.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is that she is size 16 but her fat is in all the right places. She has a flat tummy, no stretch marks, no bulges, no cellulite, no double chin.

Yes, she is surely not waif thin like previous models, but she is not the representative size 16. Nice try SI, but you are not going to out Mama June on the cover now, are you?

The size 0's they've had before were representative either.

[Anonymous]

I think she is gorgeous. I would concede that she is large. But to me, she is not fat. I am a size 16 and don't look anything like that, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah I'm 5'4 and a size 8 and look nothing like that...even when I was a 4/6 I didn't have a flat stomach and curves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the problem. They do 00 or "overcompensate" with 16.

Give me a nice 6 or 8 like Liz Taylor, Marilyn, Jayne Mansfield...

+1. She's gorgeous and looks a lot better than my flabby but thinner body. If the idea is to celebrate something as a society, though, we would be better off normalizing a healthy normal, somewhere from 6-12.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how much airbrushing happened on those photos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow!
http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2016/02/13/ashley-graham-sports-illustrated-cover-2016/



She is gorgeous.

Gorgeous, yes. 16, no way. She is heavier than that. Maybe its just the angle?

[Anonymous]

Nobody wants to see a "normal" body on the cover of SI.

This woman is gorgeous. She's a model.