I agree with Aphil on the Drew Barrymore size issue - at certain times she was on the bigger size (according to actress sizes). She only really got thinner when she started jogging afew years back.

aphil -
A thoughtful post, thank you.
I agree about Bridget Jones and the modelling.
I suppose that I dont' care about Drew Barrymore (or like her, so I don't watch her films).
Thanks for the reasoning.

Well, I guess my dreams of stardom are going to remain just that...DREAMS!! ,LOL Heck, if I have to worry about the Hollywood than I should just throw my hands up now. I am half Italian and English...I look like my father but inherited my mother's bodacious curves....Personally,I think women look a lot better with curves. Who the heck wants to look like a plank board with arm??? I want my wag to wiggle when I walk...Yup, the curves certainly have their advantages.

I'm glad someone mentioned clothing sizes. I used to sell vintage clothes and new clothes online. I had to do the measurements of the items and a size 6 from the 80's was what a size 2 would be today. I know myself wearing a size 1 in the 80's, I had to have my clothes special ordered. My waist was 24". My daughter is very thin, but her size 0 is the equivalent to a size 3 back then.

Forget about 50's vintage clothing. A size 12 then is a size 6 now.

Designers have made sizes "bigger" so that women would buy more clothing. It worked. Women constantly refer to themselves as a size.

Measurements are much more accurate.

Also, did you know lesser department stores (like Wal-Mart, Target) have bigger sizes than upscale stores? If you wear a Wal-Mart 12, it will be a 14-16 in a true designer size.

But it works for Target and Wal-Mart also. Women can magically be a size 6 when they should be wearing a 10.

Sizes don't work, but it's a money maker for sure.

jan was the one with black hair who was always eating. she sang the brusha brusha brusha song. had pigtails

I totally know what Looking4thewayout is talking about. I have some size 10 clothes that would not have fit me five years ago when I was at my same current weight. Then I would have been stuffed into a 12.

And that was only five years ago!

I don't mind the fact that sizes are readjusted these days... clothing should reflect the women who wear it. And women have grown.

And yes, genes do determine how we look. Beauty standards in America are racist. Beauty is supposedly high cheekbones, big round eyes, a small nose, and medium-full lips. With large breasts, skinny arms, tapered legs, and relatively narrow hips. Hello, that describes maybe 1% of the world's population.

Professional models should keep up their looks, because that is what models are paid for. I just wish the beauty industry would recognize that someone can be, for example, pear-shaped and in shape. Beauty exists in different sizes, colors, and body part ratios.

I had a weight distoration, when I was younger, I was in the Army and I use to weigh 115-120 then I had my daughter and I weighed 132 and I cried all day.....I went from a size 28 waist to a 33....I was so horrified now I weigh more than I did with my last child at 9 months pregnant and I have a better self image now than. I'am about 5'3 I wasnt bones at 115-120 I was physicaly fit and i didnt starve either the army fed you well......

I have to agree with you on how clothes size....are changing I worked for Jantzen clothing factory, we would sew swim suits that were a size 16 and put in a size 14 label and a size 14 suit with a size 10 label....and so forth.....and this was done quite often. we would sew the same suit for Meryvens and macy's ( Meir & Frank)the only differnce was the label.

:) Marbear-
Height has something to do with it, as well as body fat and muscle ratio...BUT your bone frame, and your shape has something to do with it as well. (Seamstress/costume designer AND belly dancer for a living LOL)
For instance, I am 5'7" and my MIL is about 5'2" or 5'3", as well as my SIL. I am a good 4 or 5 inches taller then they are, but my frame is smaller-meaning I wear a size 5 1/2 ring, and they wear 8s or 9s...I have teeny wrists and hands (can't hardly wear bracelets-they slip off my hands when I put my arms down) while they have to wear 8" bracelets, rather than the standard 7 inch ones...and when we stand back to back, the width of their shoulders and necks are much broader than mine. It doesn't matter is my SIL is 190 pounds or 120-they will never wear a size S or M in tops, simply because her back and shoulders are so broad. They are simply large framed.
Shape makes a big difference as well-because if you have two women who both weigh 160, and they are both active and exercise, and the same height-they can easily wear different sizes. If one is a pear and carries her weight in her hips and thighs, and the other is an apple shape and carries her weight mostly up top and in the abs, the pear would most likely wear a size or two larger jeans...but then again she would most likely fit into a smaller blouse than the other woman.
There are so many variations in play here...don't get down on yourself!

I am 5'3 and when I finished Army Basic Training I was 122#. After several months of being at home (I was in Reserves), my weight creeped up to 140 and I was "counseled" about it. Grrrrr...

Hollywood had this sick perception of what women should look like. I'm not a huge Drew Barrymore fan, but I thought she looked really cute in "The Wedding Singer". She had a normal body. And Nicole Ritchie looked great after she dropped a couple of pounds, but looks terrible now. I remember an interview that she did where she talked about being referred to as "the big one" on Simple Life 1. I think she said she was around 125# then.