WAS MARILYN MONROE FAT?

Marilyn Monroe has been invariably lauded as the world’s greatest sex symbol, American model, Hollywood icon, cultural icon, and fashion icon – you name it. And she certainly was an incredible woman. Norma Jean Mortensen, as she was christened at birth, came from simple origins – she worked in an aircraft factory during World War II – to become the dream of nearly every American male. She was truly incredible.

And yet today, most would call her fat.

Marilyn Monroe was a size 13. That’s before the sizes were surreptitiously bumped upward by the fashion and apparel industry to fool Americans into believing they weren’t REALLY becoming fat. (When I was in college and much thinner I wore XL. Today I wear Large – but that’s another story.) Think about that. The world’s most amazing sex symbol WAS A SIZE 13.

I prefer the Marilyns of this world. You know the ones. Those awesome, busty, curvy, women with beautiful legs and the occasional blemish. Those that really need a bra to support their cleavage, not just cover it up. This is perfection in my world. It boggles my mind that a woman as beautiful as Alyssa Milano can be skewered by the paparazzi for being ‘fat,’ which incredibly has happened recently. Are these people insane? If she’s fat, I’m the Michelin Man. Okay, I may be a bit overweight, but I’m NOT the Michelin Man. And Alyssa Milano is NOT fat.

We constantly see this tilted view of women today, and thankfully there has been a backlash both socially and even medically. We’ve all seen the horror stories of bulimia and anorexia. These are recent sociological and psychological ailments, brought to us since the 1960’s by a warped view of feminine beauty. But, truly for many women it is too little, too late. And we have yet to address one of the roots of the problem:

Why do we, as a society, allow homosexual men to set the standard for female beauty?

Watch a fashion show. Any fashion show presenting women’s fashions. Every model is overly tall, incredibly thin and has no curves. Black, white, oriental, blonde, brunette, no matter. No cleavage, no hips, no bottom. Nothing. Even when I grew up, in my high school of 750 students, there might have been two or three girls built like that. And I assure you that of those, only one was in any way attractive. So, where do they find all these undernourished models?

Then the men who are hiring these women to act as moving manequins almost invariably are homosexual. Now, their selection probably makes perfect sense to them. What would a homosexual man find attractive? Probably a tall thin man with few features. Or the opposite – a man who’s really incredibly built, with large pecs and muscular, who ripples when he moves. If you’re dealing with a woman though, you’re likely going to have to go with the former rather than the latter when you are dealing with women’s fashions. And that is their idea of feminine beauty. A woman with absolutely none of the physical feature that truly make them a woman. A woman who looks more like a … well … a boy.

So, why do we, as heterosexual men and women, allow this to occur? What is the logic here? I see these rail-thin women on TV, in commercials, on movie screens, and notice the occasional ‘normal’ woman. They, of course, are invariably shown as ugly, or bossy, or bitchy, or ditzy. I revel, though in Alyssa, and even in Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), Tisha Campbell (My Wife & Kids), Delta Burke (Designing Women) and Kirstie Alley (Cheers). Hey, these women are beautiful even if they are large and occasionally fat. They’ve got cleavage. They’ve got legs. They’ve got a butt, and they generally carry it all well. They DO NOT look like boys. They are real women, just as God intended.

A lot like Marilyn Monroe.