It's amazing how the media can manipulate the stereotype of the "desirable shape" for a woman. But is it the media, or is the media responding to something else?

Back in the 1890s, one of the most celebrated beauties of the time was Lillian Russell. She was around 5ft 3ins and weighed around 14 stone, which probably made her what, a size 18-20 by today's standards. (Of course in those days she couldn't have done the larger woman's modern trick, which is to shop at Marks & Spencer since they always cut their clothes bigger than other High St stores - allowing you to maintain you're a size 14 when in fact you can only fit into a size 16 at other chains. But I digress.)

By the 1960s things had got a little more demanding for woman. Marilyn Monroe was widely held to be the epitome of beauty, yet she was a size 14. Check out the "thunder thighs" (as they'd no doubt be termed today) in this classic still from The Seven Year Itch. Marilyn was 5ft 5½ ins and weighed around 140 lbs, that's 10 stone. On a personal note, that weight is my exact target weight and I'm half an inch taller than her. I currently fit into a size 12 in most chains and cuts, and I'm currently at 146lbs, so maybe sizes have actually got bigger.

Then look at today, at this model called Julia for example. This is by no means the skinniest model on Models.com, she's also not the biggest, she's around average. It's hard to estimate, since models.com doesn't give out vital statistics, but looking at her I'd estimate she's around a size 8-10.

So is it the fashion industry that's driving the "look" of today? Most fashion designers say that clothes just hang better on skinny women. I suppose they certainly display better, since the audience isn't being distracted by the curves underneath the dress. I understand that designers often refer to models as "expensive clothes hangers" and frankly a lot of them have all the skinniness of a coat hanger - and all the personality and good looks, too (miaow!)

Moving forward from there, the magazines featuring these underfed women on photo shoots are simply responding to the manufacturer's wishes instead of breaking the mould. Personally I'd love to see more shoots with larger women, not just so I can get a better idea of how the clothes might look on me, but also because I find curvy women more pleasing to look at. OTOH I rarely buy magazines any more - they're too bloody expensive, so why should the magazine fashion editors pay any attention to my wishes?

It then becomes logical for the news media and film/TV industry to follow suit, especially when in the case of film/TV the fashion houses are sending them free clothes - but only in a size 8 (or size 2-4 in US terms.) This is famously the case in "Ally McBeal" which explains Callista Flockhart's transformation from an already-skinny but healthy-looking woman to starvation victim.

Maybe plastic surgery is also to blame. Think about it - back in the 60s, if you wanted big boobs, you had to take the big butt, legs and tummy that went along with that. Nowadays, thanks to the astonishing prevalence of implants, you can have a size 8 body with a massive pair of 38E mammaries stuck on top. To me that looks hideous, out of proportion and unnatural, but clearly (most?) men don't agree.

I reckon it also makes a difference on where you live, as to how you see your body shape. Here in Sheffield - the UK's 4th fattest city according to a recent survey - I'm probably within the lowest 30% of weight - in other words, 70% of other women are bigger than me. And I still weigh 10st 6lbs. But when I come down South, it's reversed, and I'm probably in the top 40-50% of weight. If I was still living in crappy Crowborough, I've no doubt I'd be bemoaning my "thunder thighs" and "enormous arse". Up here, I don't really give a shit - they'll tone up when I get around to some exercise, LOL.

Maybe it all really comes down to more primitive things after all. In the 1800s and before, having curves was a good indicator of a) health and b) wealth. Because it meant you were well-nutritioned, so you were healthy, and you could afford to eat that much, so you were wealthy. Also you obviously didn't have to slog your arse off doing a manual job, so that indicated wealth as well. And being healthy and wealthy meant you were good child-bearing stock.

In the 60s, that still held true to some extent, but the rise in working women and the decline of the leisured classes made the big=rich equation fall by the wayside. The work ethic was gathering pace and it was now acceptable for women to play more physical sports.

These days, in a good turnaround, fat is a good indicator of poverty. The fattest cities are often the poorest cities. Junk food is cheap and joining a gym is expensive. So is plastic surgery.

So perhaps our response to body shapes is determined by totally subconscious instincts about the survival of the species.

Encouragingly, we seem to be moving away from the late 80s/early 90s extreme of skeletal models and moving towards something a bit more realistic. Look at J-Lo - probably the woman I find most attractive in the world right now - in this picture. Look at her leg. She's got flesh! not just a bone with skin wrapped round it. OK she's still weighs quite a bit less than me, at around 9 stone, but that probably makes her a size 10 or so. She's got curves, ladies. Let's celebrate them.