for those who are younger, her “size” is not unusual. In history, the wafer thin size of “beauty” nowadays is not the norm.
Look at the classic statue of Venus. A little meat on the bones was a sign of wealth and status.
Not morbidly obese (although men somehow were okay if they were really big—see Henry VIII)...but women could be this girl’s size and considered attractive.
Just sayin’.
Yup, she’s on the pleasant side of normal, some [well, it ain’t meat] on the bones shows she’s not wanting for sustenance & nutrition and not suffering ill health, some young man will find her desirable amid his options and enjoy what she has to offer. No need to be hard on her [; must...refrain...from...entendre...]. Historically & realistically, she’d make some man happy.
That said, she’s not the aspiring goddess of the sheets which the audience buys the magazine for. A sculptor will not be rendering her likeness in stone. She’s a featured item in a publication as part of an AGENDA attempting to grind down natural & classical values (and I use “values” as loosely as possible here). People may reference Orwell’s “1984” often, but they rarely mention something so prominent in society being pushed by the Left: the Party’s “Anti-Sex League”, he11-bent on destroying the norms of procreation, in this case “dumbing down” the sought-after genetic & behavioral ideals.
The point of the magazine is to sell depictions of unattainably high standards. I have to wonder why that content is deliberately lowered to what is, um, widely available.