I meant exceptionally beautiful, even by model standards. "straight-sized" models can have, for example, a gap in their teeth or frizzy hair, but "plus-sized" models have to have "perfect" faces. It's like each model is allowed one (1) deviation from so-called perfection, and that plus-sized models have already used…

Oh my, aren't you clever!

I think your sarcasm detector might need a tuneup. :)

No, no, not "WE". ME. I claim to represent absolutely no-one else with my petty resentments, thank you! :)

Your point is well-taken. I did not mean to be "shitty", but now I know to tread more carefully.

I was forgetting that they are also seven inches taller than I am, and that probably all of those seven inches are in the legs. I, alas, am stumpy of leg.

I hope they do! :~D

Well... now I'm just confused. Maybe it's my monitor!

Do they really? I'm not being snarky here; I sincerely ask... you think they look size 14? Because I'm a size 4, and I *swear* their arms and legs are the same size as mine! They are bigger in the waist, but the legs are just like mine!

Thank you!

That's a tough call since beauty is very subjective and saying this group or that has more beautiful faces can lead to HUGE selection bias.

I know, I know, I know. I just had to say it. :)

Yes, yes, I know. I'm just saying. These models also have unusually beautiful faces, which also irks me because it carries with it the implication that superthin models can be successful even with imperfect faces, but that these giant hippos here need to have flawless faces.

You can't converse with crazy!

Okay, I'm going to be THAT poster.

That's lovely to hear. :)

Thanks! I made the selection committee cookies and swooshed my hair in their faces. :)

Thank you!

Why... thank you! :~D

I don't know, and I don't engage. *shrug*