and you have to remember it's all relative to height, frame/bone structure, muscle vs. fat, etc. as well.
The term "full-figured" is misleading and has stigma attached to it. Size 10 on a model (usually someone over 5'9" with a small to medium frame) is going to look curvy-YES-but "fat" "frumpy" "unhealthy"-NO-which are words often associated with "full-figured" in the general consciousness.
I know people who are 5'9"-6" and size 0-2 who are JUST AS HEALTHY as people who are that height and a size 10. That's where frame comes in.
Not all models are starving themselves.
Actually I remember one season of America's Next Top Model there was a "plus-size" woman who was a SIZE 6! I was like, "um...what now?" but she didn't look like a model frankly lol...she looked like a housewife (not due to her size but she personified "mom"). And she left the show on the first day because it went against her morals to pose nude.
It is upsetting though when actors feel the need to be rail thin if that isn't their natural body type. I heard Marcia Cross said in an interview once (I think on Leno? But I'm not sure about that) that it was her job not to eat, that's what she's paid for. That's really sad!
So I guess my point is; healthy bodies come in all sizes, and whether society labels it "full-figured" or "plus-sized" isn't always a bad thing, just as falling into a size 0 isn't always a bad thing either.
--Like an odd exotic creature on display inside a zoo, hearing children asking questions makes me ask some questions too...--