Oui, agree completely- the purpose of the ad is not to make women more comfortable with their bodies as they are, otherwise such products wouldn't exist!

I definitely think that this is a step in the right direction, but I fully understand what Dove's motivation was, and it wasn't to be body positive.

"they actually only get paid a stipend, you know because they are real women."

You have GOT to be kidding me.... that's such crap! So, you don't deserve more than a bean for your time, your work, your image, if you're NOT a size four?

That alone tells me this is not a campaign about valuing women in all our various forms.

Advertising simply is not the place to look for messages that tell you you are adequate. If you're just fine without the product, how can they convince you to buy it? People need the tools to maintain their own self-confidence, because it can't be sold to them.

my god, you people can be nieve. it actually took thought for you to realize the purpose of an advertising campain is to sell product! of course that is the purpose. Dove does the marketing and demographic research, and of course one of the main findings is that people are getting fatter. so, really their advertizing is looking to take advantage of this changing demographic. "you are beautiful too" and it is worth it for you to buy beauty creams.

It is not some hidden cynical scheme, it is actually quite transparent, because it is advertising!!

As for using size 12 models, well, i for one am not in support of it. Not that size 12 looks bad, but u know, I don't, and many agree, want to see a huge size 12 plus person on the size of a building, be it man or woman. the average person is fine and dandy, but they are not models and not model material. It is this rediculous eglitarian idea that we should celibrate and strive for the average, mundane, and humdbrum. count me in with the people who hope male models continue to have ripped six packs, and female models and thin trim busty and very pretty. We do not need to see fatsos and average in adds, we are already flooded by them in our daily lives.

After all, any publicity is good publicity.

yeah i agree, i'm sure dove's motivation is all commercial... at the same time, i think it does do some good for women's body image to see images of women

yeah i agree, i'm sure dove's motivation is all commercial... at the same time, i think it does do some good for women's body image to representation of women that don't all look like starved clones.

What I don't understand is how they have been getting away with using size 0 coke addicts to peddle their wares. Everyone should stop purchasing products from companies that try to push malnourished prepubescence as beautiful.

JJS-

I_think_you_missed_teh_point!

Yes, with the aid of your trusty "marxist critique" goggles you have foiled this nafarious corporate ruse and uncovered it for the shrewd scam that it is..

Well, that just seems silly.

Most with common sense can safely leave the goggles at home and just take advertising for what it is... advertising. Do they really care to improve body image? I would bet the person who thought of this add is sincere. but does it matter?

I am a size 0-2, but I don't mind seeing size 12 people on billboards. I actually think they look *better* than models, but I suppose that's because I've always hated being skinny. I've always wanted to look like Marilyn Monroe (who was a size 16).

However, it is a slap in the face to be told that skinny chicks aren't "real" women or that we're "malnourished prepubescence" looking. Come on! Models are real women, too. Feminists claim to hate the objectification and dehumanization of women. Yet it is okay to dehumanize models and other thin women by saying we aren't real. What does that even mean? That we don't exist? Or just that we are such a small minority that it's okay to dehumanize us?

And Jesus Jones, you should know better than to be offended by seeing size 12. The market doesn't just cater to *you*. Dove is marketing to women, and if most women want to see size 12, then wouldn't you conclude they are doing the right thing?

Oh, I also want to ad that advertising is definitely about making your target market feel bad. They actually teach us this in business school. It's not what's wrong with your product, it's what's wrong with the consumer. Then try to sell your product as a solution to your consumer's "flaw". That is a documented strategy. It's not the only strategy, but it is one they teach in marketing classes.

I have to agree with "my god, you people can be naïve"

It's advertising ... get over it.

And size 12 became big when it changed its name from size 16!

Obesity no different to smoking, excess drinking etc, it's antisocial and unhealthy.

Heh. Since when is size 12 obese? Not true, you've probably rubbed one off about plenty of size 12 women and not even realized it.

Just read "like Marilyn Monroe (who was a size 16)"

Absolute rubbish, comparisons are odious.
Marilyn Monroe: 5' 5.5", 115 - 120 lbs. measurements 35-22-35.

Whatever her proportions, one cannot possibly compare a large girth to her, that's taking it too far. Everyone should just exercise more and stop eating fast food & rubbish, it's that simpl. And perhaps type II diabetes, heart disease, hypertension etc would not cause so many deaths.

"rubbed one off" ? ... not au fait with American vernacular.

drumgirl, I agree it is a slap in the face to thin women. As for rubbbing one off to a size 12 I am sure it has happened, variety is the spice of life. I do not have a clear picture of various sizes so i am not sure.

WHat I found to be the irony of this "feel good" campain is it is an add for Celulite cream. Uh, if they are being "Real" and promoting "real women" --isn't having celulite part of being a real woman? SO is the premise of the add that all these "real" woman look decent because their large thunder thies are coated with a thick layer of "firming" cream? In this case perhaps the adds are making people feel bad, at least those who bother to connect the dots. Perhaps?

If this sells Dove products and makes women feel good at the same time, than it is hard to object to. I think, however, that the success of this campaign may be short lived. Once all the good will created by the campaign has died down, Dove will essentially be left with those who are newly happy with their bodies (not likely to spend a ton of money on beauty products) and a larger segment who think of Dove as products for fat girls and wouldn't be caught dead buying them. While Dove has done something admirable here and generated a lot of good publicity, I fear that this campaign will eventually come back to bite them in the (ample) ass.

Note: If Marilyn Monroe was a size 16, then sizing standards have changed a lot since her time. I challenge anyone to look at pictures of Marilyn Monroe and claim she is as big as the Dove models (much less that she is bigger).

I am a size 11/12 and I weigh in at a whopping 128 lbs at 5'5". 128 too heavy? Pshaw.. I'd have to shave my hip bones to get into a smaller size. Some women don't have narrow frames.

Size really doesn't matter when it comes to celulite though. I know size 2s who are covered in it. You can be a size 0 and not toned, just as you can be a toned size 12. There really isn't a "normal" when it comes to men or women's bodies. People who expect there to be probably watch WAY too much TV.

Marilyn was not a size 16 by today's sizing. At her highest weight she was probably a 10 or 12 by today's sizing, most of her career she was probably a 6 or 8 by today's sizing. While that's certainly larger than most of today's models and hollywood actresses (who are mostly I believe size 0-4), I don't think she's a good example of a healthier more realistic body type. For most women to have a body like hers they'd need breast implants and ribs removed.

Geez people, I read somewhere that Marilyn was a size 16. Excuse me if I'm wrong. How would I be able to tell anyway? Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm a size 0-2. I have no clue what a 16 looks like.

I agree that the Marilyn standard is still out of reach for most people, including myself. That was part of my point, actually. I have the body of a supermodel and would love to be fatter and have a bigger ass. That's all.

But the biggest point I was trying to make is that thin women are still "real". I mean... we're not make believe. It's anti-feminist to dehumanize thin women just because our bodies offend you.

drumgirl: I wasn't picking on you, only pointing out your error as I felt that it was inappropriate to delude people (be they male or female) into equating themselves with and icon based on clothing size.

And I wholeheartedly concur with being "dehumanized" for being thin, whilst you are a Lamborghini (long, sleek) I am an MG (short, sporty) and was toned long before it became fashionable and quite frankly had it up to the eye-teeth with obese people.

I commute each day and being small, do not even occupy half the space that is designated for one. Invariably some overweight person spies this opportunity a sticks their fat arse, none too softly I might add, simultaneously crushing me and delivering a shock wave with enough force to break my neck. Political correctness has gone too far.

Aesthetically speaking someone's size, body-shape, body-mass should never, ever, be an issue, but nor should we pretend that healthwise that it is desirable. Within certain limits, most people have control over their body-mass and increasingly affluent societies have developed a very distorted view of consumption ... we are destroying this planet with our over-consumption of not only food but everything.

about the marilyn thing...
she was a british size 16...
which roughly translates to an american size 12...

anyways... like any human being, her size changed throughout her life as well... she wasn't friggin carved in alabaster or some ish...

and, not true, as another fit short person, i gotta say i wholeheartedly disagree with your despicable depiction of bigger folks. i know nuff people of all sizes and there's plenty of reasons for it... not just the ones it's easiest to put on it, and easiest to feel self-righteous about...

further, i take mad public transit all the time and, whatever... your description is pretty cartoonish... never had my neck broken... and i do jumping headstands all the time, so it's even more remarkable... besides, the women in the ads in question are, in no way, large... they're pretty normal-person sized (well... i guess the ones on the billboards are large because, well, they're on billboards)...

and, seriously, you may not have any large friends 'cos you hate fat people, so you may not know this, but the largest people i know actually do have some serious gladular problems that have an awful lot to do with it...

also, you realize there's some kind of disconnect there when you rail against how uncomfortable it is to sit on the train with these disgustingly fat people who break your neck with shockwaves to shock pavement stop playing... then you go on to present some concern for folks' health...

it's one or the other... hate or love... don't just express compassion when it shores up your disgust with other people for their supposed lack of control.

yeah... sorry for the rant... working... wrote it in like fifteen pieces while listening to jean grae (wow... she's lovley)...

I do not hate people who are overweight, just the selfish ones who commute, and for your information I had to wear a neckbrace for 6 weeks. So I assure you it was not a cartoon to me, trying to work in the stinking heat (102F) wearing that. I didn't actually say I was fit ... just happen to have definition quite by genetic accident.

My whole family happen have a predisposition to being overweight, being designed to survive during famine and I have resisted certain "foods", drinks and volumes my entire life (from age 8) in order to keep from being obese and its consequent health problems. I never said it was easy. When I had my children I went from 104-158 both times without a eating single morsel of rubbish ... and that was my point ... we consume too much for the ammount of exercise we do.

Sure if you live in the halcyon world where one stays forever young, being well-rounded actually looks nice, but what have looks got to do with it ... isn't that is the whole point of the Dove commercial, it's still fixated on aesthetics. Doesn't "soap" wash away grime (pollution another problem), so really they are just pandering to people who are still fixated on people's appearance so everyone is still being duped! Who cares what somebody looks like!

Drumgurl, Sorry if what I said came off sounding like I was trying to pick on you, I wasn't. It's just I've often heard people use Marilyn as proof that society (the media, hollywood, the fashion industry etc) once had more realistic beauty standards for women, and she's not, nor was she as large as many would like to claim her. I just tend to get frustrated about this, because I hear it so often and it's just not true.

Some other things wrong with the Dove campaign:

1. "Firming soap" is nonsensical advertising horseshit. How exactly is it supposed to work? This sort of thing used to be advertised as "cellulite cream" until the FDA started keeping a closer eye on anything claiming to eradicate cellulite. So yay, this "progressive" ad campaign is used to sell something that doesn't work and nobody needs.

2. All of the Dove ads I've seen have a narrow view of what constitutes "real women". Sure, some of these women are larger, but none of them are really what I would consider plus-sized, and they all have figures that are very proportional, instead of having the big butts, or stumpy legs, or tall hips, or poochy bellies, or a large waist combined with a small chest, or any of the myriad other features common to the actual women I know (many of whom still manage to be devastatingly hot). I guess it's noble to encompass a wider range of women in a standard of beauty, but such a normalized view of beauty is still a problem.

It seems to me like what Dove is really saying, once you strip off the PR nonsense, is, "hey, fat chicks! You need our products too!" Which really isn't so noble after all...

And I call bullshit on anyone trying to displace their own disgust and body horror onto other people by talking about how fat people should lose weight for "health reasons". Unless you're some sort of vegan straight-edge saint (in which case you're probably still an annoying, sanctimonious twit), you're probably making lifestyle choices at least as unhealthy as overeating or having a poor diet or not exercising enough. The simple fact is that there's very little correlation between someone's character and their weight, and it's not the fault of people you consider obese that they make you uncomfortable.

In case anyone cares, I'm male, 6'2", weigh 155 pounds, and get around exclusively using public transportation. And somehow, I too contrive to have issues about my weight (you can be rail-thin and still have weird little pockets of fat, something about which I'm totally paranoid).