“Why I Refused to Put a Shirt on For Shape”: http://brookenotonadiet.com/2014/05/02/refuse-put-shirt/
She was supposed to be featured in their success stories column, but they asked her to send a different picture with her shirt on (rather than in a bikini). Would love to hear your thoughts!
When ‘Shape’ magazine first came out I was a regular reader. Interestingly I believe it was started by the guy who also put out ‘Muscle and Fitness’ (which I also would occasionally pick up as the technical weight training pieces were good, though I wasn’t interested in the body building stuff). What I liked was that ‘Shape’ was different from ‘Muscle and Fitness’ in seeming more for real people who liked to exercise and stay in shape. The articles as I remember them were well written, and I found plenty of practical tips that were useful for me. I think there was another person who must have had day to day editorial say who was pushing it in that real world direction. The models were never, though, particularly real looking…. the covers in particular looked like the models on any such glossy, just with a bit extra definition. In any case, I think they are published by a different group now.
It has been many many years since I have read ‘Shape’… I suppose having spent years in the fitness industry, I prefer my ‘Idea Today’.
I looked up the issue you mentioned, and I think I pretty much agree with Sue in questioning why she wanted to be in this venue. My assumption is that as a blogger she wants exposure, and exposure in a magazine with a large readership will provide this. Of course if all she wanted was the exposure she could have put on the shirt, but she wanted the exposure on her own terms. Unfortunately magazines like this are not about what people really look like… Even the models back in the 80s, even the real women who won their fitness people of the year awards were people who would look good in the magazine, in the style that sells magazines. I don’t know whether they showed people in bathing suits with untouched up bodies before, but I can absolutely see the magazine taking a decision not to do so if they think it affects sales. As Rita Skeeter said in Harry Potter ‘the magazine exists to sell itself’, and moral issues are only going to get out there if they serve that end. I think there is a disconnect of what she wanted and what they are about. And talking about not doing it is allowing the exposure she wanted in the first place, so she kind of gets what she wanted anyway.
I have to agree that it doesn’t seem like much of a controversy.