Real Women Eat Occasionally

[filkertom]

starcat_jewel gives the heads-up on a fashion show that's banning too-skinny models. Perhaps the beginnings of the realization that the "waif" and "heroin-chic" looks are unhealthy at best and grotesque at worst?

(Of course, I'm not the go-to guy in these matters. Besides finding a little padding on a woman extremely attractive, I've never been able to figure out why an industry of fashion supposedly intended to make women more attractive is largely dominated by designers who don't find women attractive in the first place. Hmmm. Maybe that's why so many of the models look more like slender boys....)

Comments

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Because if they headed men's fashions, then WE'D actually have to start excercising and watch what we eat!

[jonnorthwood.livejournal.com]

Yup. I saw this a bit ago, too. It's wonderful to see a show finally caring both about those observing it and the models involved.

[ericcoleman]

Maybe that's why so many of the models look more like slender boys....)

I've been saying for ages that we are told that the standard for feminine beauty is to look like a teenage boy in a pushup bra ...

[batyatoon]

What was the phrase Spider Robinson used? ... "a fourteen-year-old boy with a couple of plums in his breast pockets"?

It's economic

[capplor.livejournal.com]

"supposedly intended to make women more attractive" is the bad assumption.

"Intended to make women feel like they COULD be more attractive if only they wore the right clothing" is much more accurate.

The lady's rubenesque...

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

I was hoping that the AIDS crisis would make the zaftig look more desirable, since we obviously are not the ones wasting away. Alas, the pendulum has yet to swing that far.

Yet?

Re: The lady's rubenesque...

[alicetheowl.livejournal.com]

I think it has something to do with the fact that the ideal female physique is something that costs time, effort, and often money. Bizarrely in the US, it's mostly the poorer (I don't say poorest, because those are the ones who can't eat) who are getting bigger. McDonald's, frozen food, the cheapness of carbohydrates, gym membership fees . . . All those help to make it far easier to be a girl with padding than a waif. Granted, walking's free, but how many sidewalks are there in the poorer neighborhoods? And if you're working 60 hours a week, when do you have time to exercise?

No, keeping trim and fit takes up far more time and effort these days than being bigger, and people are drawn to what's more difficult to attain.

[annechen-melo.livejournal.com]

Madrid, possibly Milan next season, who's next? I want to find out which designers support the ban and support them.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I'm still fangirling Betsey Johnson for showing her entire collection on Playmates instead of conventional runway models a few years back, because she designs stuff meant to look good on bodies, not hangers.

Not that I didn't love her already, but that kinda cemented.

[bardicwench.livejournal.com]

about time...

I just love the fact that in the modeling world, I'm considered a plus size.

[elektra-h.livejournal.com]

Anyone over a size 2 is.

[jss]

I think you mean "over a size 0."

[saraphina-marie.livejournal.com]

Truthfully speaking, in modelling anyone over a size 6/8 is considered "plus."
In retail, "Plus Size" is size 16/18 and up (it varies slightly from company to company). But nearly all "Plus Size" models are between the sizes of 10-14.
Not really "Plus", but next to the "Standard" models, a normal body type looks totally obese.

Remember, Marilyn Monroe wore a size 12!

[daundelyon.livejournal.com]

I gave up depending on sizes because they fluctuate so much between styles and designers. I have one dress that's marked a size 8 that had to be taken in all over before I could wear it. I also have one that's marked a size 14 that had to be taken in at the top and let out at the middle(of course that's a bridesmaid's dress so it may not count). Now I just sort of eyeball the dimensions and try on lots of options.

[saraphina-marie.livejournal.com]

Yeah bridal in general is going to run 5-8 sizes up form your everyday wear.

But sizes DO change according to the dimensions of the "new ideal" body shape.

Sizes have changed, too, haven't they?

[hvideo.livejournal.com]

Maybe Marilyn Monroe wore a "Size 12" - but in the 50s/60s, that meant something different than it does today. Because the clothing industry wants people to feel better about themselves when they try something on (and therefore be more likely to buy the garment), the actual measurements of a given "Size" keep increasing. Here 40-50 years later the clothes that fit Marilyn would probably be the same measurements as something made today labeled "Size 8".

[timewalker.livejournal.com]

I think it was David Spade who pleaded with the fashion magazines to just let the straight guys pick the models for one month, and you would see a definite difference in size, as men like women to look like, y'know, women, with hips and breasts and stuff.

[saraphina-marie.livejournal.com]

Most of the impetus in skinny models is two-fold, first they don't detract from the clothes with any curves. The clothes drape like they are on a hanger in a store. Models that are too curvy are thought of as being distracting, people will look at the bodies, not the clothes.
Second, smaller clothes are seen as more aesthetically pleasing. As are women's shoes. Store display shoes are always a size 5 or a size 6, considered to be the "ideal" size, while the vast majority of American women wear a size 8.

The sexual orientation of the designer is not to blame, it is simply the industry standard. Models are not seen as or treated like humans anymore, just walking mannequins. It is actually rather sad, and I feel bad for them. So many of them develop severe eating disorders, OCD, and various other metal crises stemming from the abyssmal lack of self-esteem thrust on them by one of the planet's most unfeeling industry.
Add to all that the self-loathing generated in the women who see those skin-and-bones models and feel like that is what they ahve to be...even though 90% of the world's "Supermodels" are actually genetically abnormal (nothing is wrong with them, but due to hard-and-fast genetics, I will NEVER EVER look like one of them).

All that said, I couldn't be happier as a voluptuous individual that the pendulum is shifting back somewhat.
And as an instructor to future fashion designers, I always impress upon them the idea that curves and fuller figures accentuate the clothing, not detract from it. And that a woman who can really SEE HERSELF in an outfit will be more likely to actually go out and buy it.

Thanks for posting this, Tom.

Sara
~Authoress and Fallen Fashionista~

[scott644.livejournal.com]

I think it's about damn time such restrictions got emplaced! Now, let's hope it catches on and takes over the industry.

[warinbear.livejournal.com]

I heard it said, once, that a model is a scaled-down version of the real thing. This phrase immediately removed all my lights [1]. Other descriptions include 'plasticized' and 'lacking detail;' others are left as an exercise for the student.

[1] I was de-lighted. Duh.

[kayshapero]

About time, frankly. Go over to this page of the LA Times site, click on "Photo Gallery: Spring 2007 Collections", and look at entry 23 for a horrible example. She looks like she should be rushed to the emergency room, not onto the runway.

[ionicaq.livejournal.com]

Models should not double as skeletal references.

[kayshapero]

Or look like they should speak in HOLLOW CAPITALS.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

My brother summarised this as "I'd give her a good... meal".

[rebeccax.livejournal.com]

I have so much to say on this topic I don't know where to start.

First of all, the fashion/apparel industry is a cog in the chain, not the be all end all of eating disorders and dysmorphic perceptions. While I have no problems discussing body image, I'd like to point out that assuming it's acceptable to discuss the size and shape of someone else's body is also part of the problem. Really, the crticism is endless. And finally, along gender lines, there is a beauty myth for men and men do suffer from it - more so recently then in past eras. The difference is that men don't grow up thinking that they are their fat, and that they are sexual invalid becuase of it.

Advertising - fashion related or not - isn't just propagating the beauty myth. It's actually predicated on the premise that to feel sexual, the audience must subscribe to the limitation imposed by the corresponding image. Since the majority of these images feature women in various states of undress and simulating sexual arousal/attraction it's not a difficult connection to make. The real danger here is that sexual response is indeed a learned behavior. When these and similar images bombard us through print and live media sources it creates a climate in which expecting such limitations - flat stomachs, large breasts, symetrical features, rounded ass, etc - becomes normative. It feels inherent because we can't imagine what sex and gender would look like without such conditioning.

And to bring this into the practical realm, I have to wonder how many people ever question why they define "attractive" the way they do. Particularly men. Men who insist they couldn't possible be attracted to women who are heavy are considered normal and justified. There is no backlash for this kind of thinking. And while most people would understand an objection to a co-worker who hangs girly pics in his cube, and that that would be a hostile work environment, it's much much harder to convince people that we exist in a hostile cultural climate. Really, how much different is it when some woman's boobs are shoved in my face in a beer ad at the bus stop?

[kayshapero]

Never mind the beauty myth, or the larger implications of the appearence of the model - it's the women themselves I'm concerned about. When the job goes to the thinnest, and there are far fewer jobs than applicant, exaggeration of the desired characteristic sets in and the set of employed models gets scrawnier and scrawnier as time goes past. When I look at some of these women (notably the example I cited earlier), and realize that the last time I saw bones that clearly defined it was in photos of concentration camp victims it bothers me.

[rebeccax.livejournal.com]

Right, but there's a market for it. Plenty of people see no problem with the emaciated aesthetic. Yes, I worry about the individual women but our whole culture is either actively supporting this or complicit in it. At least photos of holocaust survivors elicit an appropriate reaction, not accolades for how "hot" they are.