Voluptuous Mannequins Are the Wave of the Future

Skinny is the new emaciated.The new Goddess line of mannequins has come out swinging its rickety little arms in protest of a typical mannequin’s measurements, 32A-23-33. For those not familiar with this sort of measurement, that means a 32A bra size, a 23-inch waist measured just above the navel, and 33-inch hips, measured around the widest part of the buttocks.

The Goddess mannequin, made by Ralph Pucci, comes in at the shocking measurement of 34B-25-35.5. It’s that half inch that really gets people hot. Mr. Pucci noted that the new mannequins’ measurements are meant to “remind you of the sexiness.”

Hang on a second. “Remind you of the sexiness?” Had you forgotten? Though I suppose 32A-23-33 might make you think you were looking at an 11-year-old girl, so 34B-25-35.5 would at least push you into the realm of puberty and sexual attraction – to a mannequin. Whatever turns you on, I guess.

Reading about the new mannequins’ measurements is the kind of thing that could send a girl running for the tape measure-and in my case it did. Holy mackerel! If that great whopping 34B-25-35.5 will “remind you of the sexiness,” I’m practically pornographic and probably borderline offensive. I never thought my 34C-26-38 measurements were particularly scandalous, but apparently I’m some form of earthly Venus – I don’t even have the modesty to take off a half inch here and there. Ooh, remind them of the sexiness, indeed.

But people like Michael Steward, Executive Vice President of the more traditional mannequin company Adel Rootstein USA, seem to think that even my less lascivious 34B-25-35.5 compatriots are obscene. His company’s mannequins, the 32A-23-33-type models, he characterized in The New York Times as “a tall Size 2 to 4. ‘Not too skinny, not too voluptuous.'”

Of course! A size 2 to 4 is just about average, I’d say – definitely not too voluptuous. The rest of my buxom Size-6 crew had better be careful not to incite any riots with such outrageous measurements as ours. Mr. Steward continued in defense of his wispy mannequins, saying “there’s a difference between what people look like and what they want to look like – they want to see what they’re trying to look like.”

Well, gee, Mr. Steward, (my inner feminist fumes), I like my rack. It’s pretty nice. I like that when I lie down, my hip bones don’t stick out like two handle bars. Sorry I couldn’t look more like my mother, an even 24-24-24 all round, except for her IQ, which is closer to 240 – no fiberglass-stuffed mannequin she.

But back to the mannequins. “It’s a little sexist,” Mr. Steward commented in The New York Times, referring to the new 34B-25-35.5, slightly-less-sticklike mannequins. “It’s not creating an image of a woman as an elegant creature. It’s a little bit down and dirty, a little crass.”Down and dirty like a New Orleans whorehouse, I’m sure. Makes perfect sense, because elegant is definitely emaciated – and fiberglass, too, but that’s beside the point. Here’s the interesting bit: the Goddess line, along with the curvier mannequins from Goldsmith Inc., called the Sex line, both present images of women with relatively fuller, more feminine figures – you might even call them sexy, relative to the Biafra babes Mr. Steward churns out. These new barely curvy mannequins are deemed “crass” by people like Mr. Steward. One might then deduce that for people like Mr. Steward, elegant women should be asexual stilt-beings.

Also, he seems to assert that a mannequin with a slightly more curvaceous figure is sexist. I assume this means that because the mannequin is slightly sexier – wait, who am I kidding – less like a pre-pubescent girl, it is portraying women as sex objects. Right. Because that twig mannequin over there pouting and pointing her finger at God knows what is ultra-affirming.It almost makes you mad enough to go get a cookie. Or two.