Calvin Klein 'PLUS SIZE' model
Replies
-
It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
20 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »i'm sorry but this is ridiculous.
She is a plus size MODEL. Of course she looks good. this is irrelevant.
I just want to say that this mentality you are talking about is just silly. Listen, the fact of the matter is... 70.2% of people in the united states are overweight. Of that almost half are seriously obese. Let's please drop the "think of the children!" argument, because the fact of the matter is 70% are likely to be fat once they reach adulthood and only 4% may develop an eating disorder during their lifetime.
I'm not okay with models who are clearly suffering from anorexia, but i'm perfectly fine with a healthy model who is a size 0 modeling clothes. The whole reason they are models is because they fill a specific standard of beauty. They are generally their size because this is how clothing designers want their outfits portrayed (draped). And this is really only in high-fashion modeling.
Look at the angels... notice anything similar?
there are plenty of models whom we would consider "normal" size who model clothing, do advertisements, and more.
What we don't need is people confusing the fact that the above women is modeling plus size clothing (size 10). It is what it is.
More and more as we get fatter and fatter as a society we are becoming more and more conditioned to seeing very large people all the time. this is not how human bodies were designed. Period. Why do they pick a woman who wears a size 10 as their plus size model vs someone who is "actually fat" like, say, tess holiday?
Because she is still an appropriately sized human being within a healthy weight range. Her proportions fit her body. She has the desired hourglass shape which highlights the clothing she wears. Her body is still young and glowing. And she radiates health.
If we had genuinely obese people modeling clothing, quite frankly no one would buy anything. Models don't sell us the clothing; they sell us the idea of how we'll look in the clothing.
It's also important to mention that as we have low body fat the variations seen in body type are very very minimal. this means that a small model of similar height will look the same as other models of similar height which means they portray clothing the same.
The fatter you get the more body type is apparent, no two fat people hold fat in the exact same places. What does that mean? it means that they cannot model plus size clothing consistently as clothing makers cannot make clothing that looks consistent on fatter people. Someone may hold their fat in the stomach, legs, butt, chest, etc. Clothing therefore has to be tailored to their specific body measurements.
Let's next talk about the fact that a model like myla can actually show off women's clothing. Whereas someone like tess:
You can see they have to use posing manipulation to get her to actually show the clothing and not just look like a giant blob. You'll commonly see side shots, hand on the hip to accentuate a false waist, leg popped out to the side to accentuate a false curve, feet apart to give the illusion of an hourglass figure, and more. Someone like tess cannot even stand with feet together, with arms straight at the side, etc. like myla can because her anatomy doesn't even allow it. See Below for an example:
The fact is, they will always pick someone like Myla to model plus size clothing instead of someone who is obese because her body type MODELS better than someone who is obese. She sells the idea, she drapes clothing, her body radiates beauty and health.
As far as models which are "too skinny", there are more and more regulations being put into place to keep models who are TOO thin off the runways. Being too-thin is now less desirable. This doesn't mean we should have "average people" models (for the reasons i provided). And it doesn't mean that plus size isn't plus size just because the model is not visibly "fat".
edit: my point is the whole point of a models job is to make clothing look good and to be beautiful but not too distracting. They will always pick women who show clothing the best and who represent the "beauty" they are trying to project. You will not see "average" looking people, older people, the "dad bod", the obese, the unhealthy, the crippled, and more selling high end clothing because it does not reflect the artistic vision for these items.
Is it OK if we think she's pretty? :headscratch:
obviously? like i said... she's a model isn't she?
I was only addressing the nonsense from the original post.
Nonsense from original post? I do not think you understood me at all. I was addressing the fact that woman with BMI 21 is being called PLUS, big and similar. Their model from previous campaign in 1.8 m tall and 50 kg (BMI 16.5). I'm not say we should have overweight models (this one is not) I'm saying not to put UNDERWEIGHT models.
And about angels, just because you think they look healthy does not mean that they actually are:
Adriana Lima BMI 17.6
Alessandra Ambrosio BMI 16.5
Behati Prinslo BMI 16.7
.... for more: http://thevsangelz.tumblr.com/measurements-and-description
And they are one of the more 'normal looking' models around. Being underweight carries many health risks. Actually it is healthier to be couple kg overweight rather than underweight.
I am basically saying they should not be promoting anything unhealthy.
She is big because of her height and the fact that she wear size 10 clothing. not because she's fat. She IS plus sized.
And as stated, they need models to be thin because they actually "model" clothing. And as stated, yet again, 70% of people are overweight, 35% are OBESE. The measly 4% of women who *may* develop an eating disorder in their lifetime is NOTHING compared to the damaging health effects of obesity on our society.
I'm not saying anorexic models are good, i'm saying that we shouldn't have "normal" looking high fashion models because it makes no sense.
Actually, yes, we should.
I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Yes, this.
On a different note, if we are going to "worry about the children," I think it would be more concerning to normalize models like Tess Holliday.
this was also my point. OP was so focused on some models who are thin (because of the reasons i listed) instead of the fact that almost everyone in our society is overweight and more and more often we're seeing obese bodies in the mainstream media being portrayed as "beautiful". In my opinion, this is the least of our concerns.
But seeing underweight models obviously is not succeeding in inspiring people to lose weight according to you saying everyone's overweight or obese. I again say that's the case in US. US is not entire world
that was my point. That your "think of the children!" argument made no sense, because obviously it's not working.
And you're right, obesity is only an issue in MOST civilized countries. My bad.
http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/world-map-obesity/2 -
rainbowbow wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »i'm sorry but this is ridiculous.
She is a plus size MODEL. Of course she looks good. this is irrelevant.
I just want to say that this mentality you are talking about is just silly. Listen, the fact of the matter is... 70.2% of people in the united states are overweight. Of that almost half are seriously obese. Let's please drop the "think of the children!" argument, because the fact of the matter is 70% are likely to be fat once they reach adulthood and only 4% may develop an eating disorder during their lifetime.
I'm not okay with models who are clearly suffering from anorexia, but i'm perfectly fine with a healthy model who is a size 0 modeling clothes. The whole reason they are models is because they fill a specific standard of beauty. They are generally their size because this is how clothing designers want their outfits portrayed (draped). And this is really only in high-fashion modeling.
Look at the angels... notice anything similar?
there are plenty of models whom we would consider "normal" size who model clothing, do advertisements, and more.
What we don't need is people confusing the fact that the above women is modeling plus size clothing (size 10). It is what it is.
More and more as we get fatter and fatter as a society we are becoming more and more conditioned to seeing very large people all the time. this is not how human bodies were designed. Period. Why do they pick a woman who wears a size 10 as their plus size model vs someone who is "actually fat" like, say, tess holiday?
Because she is still an appropriately sized human being within a healthy weight range. Her proportions fit her body. She has the desired hourglass shape which highlights the clothing she wears. Her body is still young and glowing. And she radiates health.
If we had genuinely obese people modeling clothing, quite frankly no one would buy anything. Models don't sell us the clothing; they sell us the idea of how we'll look in the clothing.
It's also important to mention that as we have low body fat the variations seen in body type are very very minimal. this means that a small model of similar height will look the same as other models of similar height which means they portray clothing the same.
The fatter you get the more body type is apparent, no two fat people hold fat in the exact same places. What does that mean? it means that they cannot model plus size clothing consistently as clothing makers cannot make clothing that looks consistent on fatter people. Someone may hold their fat in the stomach, legs, butt, chest, etc. Clothing therefore has to be tailored to their specific body measurements.
Let's next talk about the fact that a model like myla can actually show off women's clothing. Whereas someone like tess:
You can see they have to use posing manipulation to get her to actually show the clothing and not just look like a giant blob. You'll commonly see side shots, hand on the hip to accentuate a false waist, leg popped out to the side to accentuate a false curve, feet apart to give the illusion of an hourglass figure, and more. Someone like tess cannot even stand with feet together, with arms straight at the side, etc. like myla can because her anatomy doesn't even allow it. See Below for an example:
The fact is, they will always pick someone like Myla to model plus size clothing instead of someone who is obese because her body type MODELS better than someone who is obese. She sells the idea, she drapes clothing, her body radiates beauty and health.
As far as models which are "too skinny", there are more and more regulations being put into place to keep models who are TOO thin off the runways. Being too-thin is now less desirable. This doesn't mean we should have "average people" models (for the reasons i provided). And it doesn't mean that plus size isn't plus size just because the model is not visibly "fat".
edit: my point is the whole point of a models job is to make clothing look good and to be beautiful but not too distracting. They will always pick women who show clothing the best and who represent the "beauty" they are trying to project. You will not see "average" looking people, older people, the "dad bod", the obese, the unhealthy, the crippled, and more selling high end clothing because it does not reflect the artistic vision for these items.
Is it OK if we think she's pretty? :headscratch:
obviously? like i said... she's a model isn't she?
I was only addressing the nonsense from the original post.
Nonsense from original post? I do not think you understood me at all. I was addressing the fact that woman with BMI 21 is being called PLUS, big and similar. Their model from previous campaign in 1.8 m tall and 50 kg (BMI 16.5). I'm not say we should have overweight models (this one is not) I'm saying not to put UNDERWEIGHT models.
And about angels, just because you think they look healthy does not mean that they actually are:
Adriana Lima BMI 17.6
Alessandra Ambrosio BMI 16.5
Behati Prinslo BMI 16.7
.... for more: http://thevsangelz.tumblr.com/measurements-and-description
And they are one of the more 'normal looking' models around. Being underweight carries many health risks. Actually it is healthier to be couple kg overweight rather than underweight.
I am basically saying they should not be promoting anything unhealthy.
She is big because of her height and the fact that she wear size 10 clothing. not because she's fat. She IS plus sized.
And as stated, they need models to be thin because they actually "model" clothing. And as stated, yet again, 70% of people are overweight, 35% are OBESE. The measly 4% of women who *may* develop an eating disorder in their lifetime is NOTHING compared to the damaging health effects of obesity on our society.
I'm not saying anorexic models are good, i'm saying that we shouldn't have "normal" looking high fashion models because it makes no sense.
Actually, yes, we should.
I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
then you're not the desired audience.
No one says "Oh, i want to shop and so and so's designer store because it'll make me look average". Models sell a dream, a vision, and the product itself as it was intended to be worn.
And as stated, yet again, models are the size they are because one size fits all of them. They portray the silhouette the designers have in mind and they drape clothing properly.
You are actually wrong...even people that are as skinny as they are don't have same measurements. Even skeletons would not be the same.
Example:
Lais Ribeiro Height: 5’11 or 180 cm; Weight: 54 kg or 119 Pounds; Measurements: 31.5B-23-33
Behati Prinslo Height: 5’11 or 180 cm; Weight: 54 kg or 119.5 Pounds; Measurements: 33A-24-35
See same height, weight and STILL not same.
Also telling people they are not 'target audience' - who is with 70%percent people being overweight...and them selling a dream, a vision...of what? Anorexia?
okay, look at the variation in sizes there. We are talking SMALL variations.
The higher your bmi the more body fat and the more variation in body type. This is why it's so difficult for us "average" people to find clothing that fits us, we all have bigger variations in body size. the model's job is to portray the clothing in the best possible light and as the designer intended.
And skeletons wouldn't be the same? I'm sorry, but we are again talking inches in variation not huge differences.
They are selling the dream of the best possible way that item of clothing can look. that's their job.
Yeah it's the time of advanced technologies...soon models will be obsolete with virtual runways and whatever.0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
Not to mention that anorexia is a disorder with specific diagnostic criteria. It isn't just the state of being slender.5 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
6 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »i'm sorry but this is ridiculous.
She is a plus size MODEL. Of course she looks good. this is irrelevant.
I just want to say that this mentality you are talking about is just silly. Listen, the fact of the matter is... 70.2% of people in the united states are overweight. Of that almost half are seriously obese. Let's please drop the "think of the children!" argument, because the fact of the matter is 70% are likely to be fat once they reach adulthood and only 4% may develop an eating disorder during their lifetime.
I'm not okay with models who are clearly suffering from anorexia, but i'm perfectly fine with a healthy model who is a size 0 modeling clothes. The whole reason they are models is because they fill a specific standard of beauty. They are generally their size because this is how clothing designers want their outfits portrayed (draped). And this is really only in high-fashion modeling.
Look at the angels... notice anything similar?
there are plenty of models whom we would consider "normal" size who model clothing, do advertisements, and more.
What we don't need is people confusing the fact that the above women is modeling plus size clothing (size 10). It is what it is.
More and more as we get fatter and fatter as a society we are becoming more and more conditioned to seeing very large people all the time. this is not how human bodies were designed. Period. Why do they pick a woman who wears a size 10 as their plus size model vs someone who is "actually fat" like, say, tess holiday?
Because she is still an appropriately sized human being within a healthy weight range. Her proportions fit her body. She has the desired hourglass shape which highlights the clothing she wears. Her body is still young and glowing. And she radiates health.
If we had genuinely obese people modeling clothing, quite frankly no one would buy anything. Models don't sell us the clothing; they sell us the idea of how we'll look in the clothing.
It's also important to mention that as we have low body fat the variations seen in body type are very very minimal. this means that a small model of similar height will look the same as other models of similar height which means they portray clothing the same.
The fatter you get the more body type is apparent, no two fat people hold fat in the exact same places. What does that mean? it means that they cannot model plus size clothing consistently as clothing makers cannot make clothing that looks consistent on fatter people. Someone may hold their fat in the stomach, legs, butt, chest, etc. Clothing therefore has to be tailored to their specific body measurements.
Let's next talk about the fact that a model like myla can actually show off women's clothing. Whereas someone like tess:
You can see they have to use posing manipulation to get her to actually show the clothing and not just look like a giant blob. You'll commonly see side shots, hand on the hip to accentuate a false waist, leg popped out to the side to accentuate a false curve, feet apart to give the illusion of an hourglass figure, and more. Someone like tess cannot even stand with feet together, with arms straight at the side, etc. like myla can because her anatomy doesn't even allow it. See Below for an example:
The fact is, they will always pick someone like Myla to model plus size clothing instead of someone who is obese because her body type MODELS better than someone who is obese. She sells the idea, she drapes clothing, her body radiates beauty and health.
As far as models which are "too skinny", there are more and more regulations being put into place to keep models who are TOO thin off the runways. Being too-thin is now less desirable. This doesn't mean we should have "average people" models (for the reasons i provided). And it doesn't mean that plus size isn't plus size just because the model is not visibly "fat".
edit: my point is the whole point of a models job is to make clothing look good and to be beautiful but not too distracting. They will always pick women who show clothing the best and who represent the "beauty" they are trying to project. You will not see "average" looking people, older people, the "dad bod", the obese, the unhealthy, the crippled, and more selling high end clothing because it does not reflect the artistic vision for these items.
Is it OK if we think she's pretty? :headscratch:
obviously? like i said... she's a model isn't she?
I was only addressing the nonsense from the original post.
Nonsense from original post? I do not think you understood me at all. I was addressing the fact that woman with BMI 21 is being called PLUS, big and similar. Their model from previous campaign in 1.8 m tall and 50 kg (BMI 16.5). I'm not say we should have overweight models (this one is not) I'm saying not to put UNDERWEIGHT models.
And about angels, just because you think they look healthy does not mean that they actually are:
Adriana Lima BMI 17.6
Alessandra Ambrosio BMI 16.5
Behati Prinslo BMI 16.7
.... for more: http://thevsangelz.tumblr.com/measurements-and-description
And they are one of the more 'normal looking' models around. Being underweight carries many health risks. Actually it is healthier to be couple kg overweight rather than underweight.
I am basically saying they should not be promoting anything unhealthy.
She is big because of her height and the fact that she wear size 10 clothing. not because she's fat. She IS plus sized.
And as stated, they need models to be thin because they actually "model" clothing. And as stated, yet again, 70% of people are overweight, 35% are OBESE. The measly 4% of women who *may* develop an eating disorder in their lifetime is NOTHING compared to the damaging health effects of obesity on our society.
I'm not saying anorexic models are good, i'm saying that we shouldn't have "normal" looking high fashion models because it makes no sense.
Actually, yes, we should.
I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
then you're not the desired audience.
No one says "Oh, i want to shop and so and so's designer store because it'll make me look average". Models sell a dream, a vision, and the product itself as it was intended to be worn.
And as stated, yet again, models are the size they are because one size fits all of them. They portray the silhouette the designers have in mind and they drape clothing properly.
You are actually wrong...even people that are as skinny as they are don't have same measurements. Even skeletons would not be the same.
Example:
Lais Ribeiro Height: 5’11 or 180 cm; Weight: 54 kg or 119 Pounds; Measurements: 31.5B-23-33
Behati Prinslo Height: 5’11 or 180 cm; Weight: 54 kg or 119.5 Pounds; Measurements: 33A-24-35
See same height, weight and STILL not same.
Also telling people they are not 'target audience' - who is with 70%percent people being overweight...and them selling a dream, a vision...of what? Anorexia?
okay, look at the variation in sizes there. We are talking SMALL variations.
The higher your bmi the more body fat and the more variation in body type. This is why it's so difficult for us "average" people to find clothing that fits us, we all have bigger variations in body size. the model's job is to portray the clothing in the best possible light and as the designer intended.
And skeletons wouldn't be the same? I'm sorry, but we are again talking inches in variation not huge differences.
They are selling the dream of the best possible way that item of clothing can look. that's their job.
Yeah it's the time of advanced technologies...soon models will be obsolete with virtual runways and whatever.
i think as humans we will always seek out beauty in things. There are a couple things that as humans, we find beautiful instinctually. These people whose job it is to sell these items of clothing are selected specifically because we find them outliers.
Youth, Certain waist/hip Ratios (or chest/waist in men), symmetry, contrast, health/vibrance, clear skin, and more are just natural things we find beautiful and as much as we want those things to change or for our features (whatever they may be) to fit standard the fact still remains. I don't believe, even as cultural ideals of beauty change that these instinctual traits will ever change.
I think certain industries (high fashion, luxury brands, and more) will continue to exploit these traits until the end of time because it works.4 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Let's please drop the "think of the children!" argument, because the fact of the matter is 70% are likely to be fat once they reach adulthood and only 4% may develop an eating disorder during their lifetime.
Where in the world are you getting "only 4%" of women may develop an eating disorder in their lifetime? Do you not remember college? I'm pretty sure I have known WAY more women that have struggled with some sort of disordered eating than those that have not. You don't need to be throwing up 8 times a day to have an ED.
8 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
8 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Let's please drop the "think of the children!" argument, because the fact of the matter is 70% are likely to be fat once they reach adulthood and only 4% may develop an eating disorder during their lifetime.
Where in the world are you getting "only 4%" of women may develop an eating disorder in their lifetime? Do you not remember college? I'm pretty sure I have known WAY more women that have struggled with some sort of disordered eating than those that have not. You don't need to be throwing up 8 times a day to have an ED.
That's the statistic.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/get-facts-eating-disorders
http://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/information/statistics-studies
It's best not to use anecdotal evidence in this case. You may have known many women with eating disorders, but that is not necessarily reflective of the overall statistics. i'm also not undermining the danger of eating disorders as i know they are some of the most deadly mental health issues.
My point simply was that we have far far more in the opposite direction and that using "thin models" as a "think of the children!" argument doesn't work.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
1 -
Yea I just came here for the pics7
-
We'd probably all be better off if we cared less about models and their size.9
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
I think calling someone "borderline anorexic" when you don't know anything about them besides their BMI is a jump. They may be unhealthy, they may not be. It's hard to believe that this is prompted by a genuine concern for their wellbeing on your part instead of a more general frustration with the hiring practices of the modeling industry.
If I'm wrong and this is prompted by a concern for their wellbeing, I don't think identifying yourself as a doctor and declaring they, as a group, are all borderline cases of a specific ED is the best way to express your concern.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We'd probably all be better off if we cared less about models and their size.
I don't usually follow fashion industry and models and so on...I just happened to see this post about a PLUS size model and I was surprised to see that this woman that's normal weight (BMI 21) is considered plus because underweight is considered the norm. I really don't follow it usually so maybe that is why I was so shocked by it.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
I think calling someone "borderline anorexic" when you don't know anything about them besides their BMI is a jump. They may be unhealthy, they may not be. It's hard to believe that this is prompted by a genuine concern for their wellbeing on your part instead of a more general frustration with the hiring practices of the modeling industry.
If I'm wrong and this is prompted by a concern for their wellbeing, I don't think identifying yourself as a doctor and declaring they, as a group, are all borderline cases of a specific ED is the best way to express your concern.
You are right I was not concerned that much about them (they do it for living - it's their choice) I'm more concerned about the message it sends. Because even if they might not have an eating disorder... in order to achieve 'the dream and the vision of perfection' like some here say...people will try to achieve such unhealthy weights because 'it's beautiful'. They are advertising to very broad masses. And it might not affect me, or you but it might someone. I am concerned about promoting anything unhealthy. That includes underweight, overweight, drinking, smoking...all sorts
2 -
TESS Holiday has gone insane, she IS morbidly obese, and is claiming she is healthy... and that's she's a much smaller size, is just "plus" size. NO, she is not "plus" and getting more bizarre as time goes on..she is losing support of the women who admired her because of lying, her health is impacted, and it is only her FACE which is beautiful by our standards, and what she is promoting goes well beyond common sense of "health" and should not be promoted.
Accepting yourself is one thing, fighting against unrealistic too thin body image is another thing, but promoting ill health via extreme obesity is not.. Tess is young, in a few years all this massive body weight will catch up as her organs begin to fail, bones and muscles can't support that weight, and she will be a burden to herself, and on the medical system.
Between anorexia and "Annas"- girls who want to die very very thin, and being asked to accept SUPERsize just shows how far we are from expecting 'normal' to be the norm.4 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
I think calling someone "borderline anorexic" when you don't know anything about them besides their BMI is a jump. They may be unhealthy, they may not be. It's hard to believe that this is prompted by a genuine concern for their wellbeing on your part instead of a more general frustration with the hiring practices of the modeling industry.
If I'm wrong and this is prompted by a concern for their wellbeing, I don't think identifying yourself as a doctor and declaring they, as a group, are all borderline cases of a specific ED is the best way to express your concern.
You are right I was not concerned that much about them (they do it for living - it's their choice) I'm more concerned about the message it sends. Because even if they might not have an eating disorder... in order to achieve 'the dream and the vision of perfection' like some here say...people will try to achieve such unhealthy weights because 'it's beautiful'. They are advertising to very broad masses. And it might not affect me, or you but it might someone. I am concerned about promoting anything unhealthy. That includes underweight, overweight, drinking, smoking...all sorts
If it's okay for someone to choose that BMI to make a living, why wouldn't it be okay for someone else to choose that BMI because they think it is beautiful? Why not be concerned with the first group but be concerned about the second?
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting? Do you think it should be illegal to hire a model who is under a certain BMI? Should it also be illegal to hire a model that is above a certain BMI?
Aspirational products (like expensive clothes) typically include an element of fantasy. You seem to be arguing that models should look like regular people -- at least when it comes to weight. But models typically are much more beautiful than the average person. Is that something you think should also be addressed? Should we expect models to have hair, teeth, complexions that resemble that of the average person?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
I think calling someone "borderline anorexic" when you don't know anything about them besides their BMI is a jump. They may be unhealthy, they may not be. It's hard to believe that this is prompted by a genuine concern for their wellbeing on your part instead of a more general frustration with the hiring practices of the modeling industry.
If I'm wrong and this is prompted by a concern for their wellbeing, I don't think identifying yourself as a doctor and declaring they, as a group, are all borderline cases of a specific ED is the best way to express your concern.
You are right I was not concerned that much about them (they do it for living - it's their choice) I'm more concerned about the message it sends. Because even if they might not have an eating disorder... in order to achieve 'the dream and the vision of perfection' like some here say...people will try to achieve such unhealthy weights because 'it's beautiful'. They are advertising to very broad masses. And it might not affect me, or you but it might someone. I am concerned about promoting anything unhealthy. That includes underweight, overweight, drinking, smoking...all sorts
If it's okay for someone to choose that BMI to make a living, why wouldn't it be okay for someone else to choose that BMI because they think it is beautiful? Why not be concerned with the first group but be concerned about the second?
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting? Do you think it should be illegal to hire a model who is under a certain BMI? Should it also be illegal to hire a model that is above a certain BMI?
Aspirational products (like expensive clothes) typically include an element of fantasy. You seem to be arguing that models should look like regular people -- at least when it comes to weight. But models typically are much more beautiful than the average person. Is that something you think should also be addressed? Should we expect models to have hair, teeth, complexions that resemble that of the average person?
It is not actually illegal to hire model under certain BMI but it is however frowned upon so I read they try to keep over 16.5... I have nothing against beautiful or thin models. If they requested BMI 18.5 I think it would not impact their beauty in a negative way. I never said they should be average... beauty queens are tall and beautiful but usually not as skinny. Victorias angels are actually ones that look good, there are so many that look sickly. And I got hate here for saying that such beauty standards can impacts kids and teenagers in a bad way (because they are more likely to get overweight than underweight) ... Those models would be just as beautiful with couple kg more... it can be muscle and not fat. We should just be promoting health in every way.5 -
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but the point of this is that there are models for plus and models for sizes 0-4 but none for size 10 or medium sized. The article explains that she had to wear extra padding to fill out plus clothes but she is too big for the smaller sizes. I tend to agree that there are underweight and low BMI representative models and overweight BMI but we don't often see normal BMI range being modeled.5
-
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's Calvin Klein, not Torrid or Lane Bryant. Of COURSE size 10 is plus-sized. The fact that it's (sadly) also the new "normal" doesn't change the fact that Calvin Klein -- like most mainstream designers -- has always used very thin models.
Also, her chin does in fact need some de-emphasizing (which it's received in most of her pics). It's almost like models aren't paragons of aesthetic perfection and require some Photoshopping, just like you and me. Just as it's been for decades with airbrushing.I don't care what clothes look like on a size 0 model (which for my size would be size what... -4? considering that they are tall AND size 0). It's not what it will look like on me. What I want to see is what it will look on normal people... that will save me the trouble of having to try out clothes that will inevitably look awful on me.
Congratulations -- Calvin Klein ads aren't geared towards you. I ride a motorcycle and am not fabulously wealthy, so Lamborghini ads aren't geared towards me, but it's never occurred to me to complain about it.KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »It makes no sense to have normal looking models? ... Do they have to be borderline anorexic?
Does it really make you feel better about yourself to call thin people "borderline anorexic"?
I feel very good about myself thank you I'm calling them borderline anorexic because they are in medical sense concerning weight (I am a doctor of medicine) and BMI under 16.5 is considered anorexic. I'm not going to get into how they maintain such weight but bulimia and anorexia are quite common in modeling world.
Are you arguing that a doctor will diagnose anorexia just on the basis of BMI without knowing anything else about the person's habits, mindset, activities, state of mind, or other symptoms?
Just knowing someone's BMI is sufficient to understand if they are suffering from anorexia or not?
I did not say weight alone is enough however it is one of the main criteria. Anorexic or not, it is significantly underweight and therefor unhealthy. Whether or not it is anorexia indeed I can't determine from weight alone but it is a red flag.
I think calling someone "borderline anorexic" when you don't know anything about them besides their BMI is a jump. They may be unhealthy, they may not be. It's hard to believe that this is prompted by a genuine concern for their wellbeing on your part instead of a more general frustration with the hiring practices of the modeling industry.
If I'm wrong and this is prompted by a concern for their wellbeing, I don't think identifying yourself as a doctor and declaring they, as a group, are all borderline cases of a specific ED is the best way to express your concern.
You are right I was not concerned that much about them (they do it for living - it's their choice) I'm more concerned about the message it sends. Because even if they might not have an eating disorder... in order to achieve 'the dream and the vision of perfection' like some here say...people will try to achieve such unhealthy weights because 'it's beautiful'. They are advertising to very broad masses. And it might not affect me, or you but it might someone. I am concerned about promoting anything unhealthy. That includes underweight, overweight, drinking, smoking...all sorts
If it's okay for someone to choose that BMI to make a living, why wouldn't it be okay for someone else to choose that BMI because they think it is beautiful? Why not be concerned with the first group but be concerned about the second?
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I'm not sure what you're actually suggesting? Do you think it should be illegal to hire a model who is under a certain BMI? Should it also be illegal to hire a model that is above a certain BMI?
Aspirational products (like expensive clothes) typically include an element of fantasy. You seem to be arguing that models should look like regular people -- at least when it comes to weight. But models typically are much more beautiful than the average person. Is that something you think should also be addressed? Should we expect models to have hair, teeth, complexions that resemble that of the average person?
It is not actually illegal to hire model under certain BMI but it is however frowned upon so I read they try to keep over 16.5... I have nothing against beautiful or thin models. If they requested BMI 18.5 I think it would not impact their beauty in a negative way. I never said they should be average... beauty queens are tall and beautiful but usually not as skinny. Victorias angels are actually ones that look good, there are so many that look sickly. And I got hate here for saying that such beauty standards can impacts kids and teenagers in a bad way (because they are more likely to get overweight than underweight) ... Those models would be just as beautiful with couple kg more... it can be muscle and not fat. We should just be promoting health in every way.
I wasn't stating that it *was* illegal to hire models under a certain BMI. I was asking if that was what you were proposing (and the reverse as well, making it illegal to hire models who were over a certain BMI).
Your statement that Victoria's Secret models look "good" while others look "sickly" is a value judgment. I believe you think that and it's a genuine belief, but why is it more valid than the judgment of a designer or fashion photographer that a certain look is perfect for the clothes they are trying to display or the picture they're trying to create? Why is your judgment more valid than theirs?
You're free to promote health in every way (as you define it). But you seem to be proposing that others use their bodies and their businesses to also promote your version of health. Why can't you promote your vision and let them make their choices?
It's your body so you're free to choose the weight that you mind most beautiful and healthful. Expecting a model to gain weight because you think she would be just as beautiful? I don't think that is reasonable.2 -
I do not have my own rules for healthy or not. In medicine there are guidelines. Weight under 20 BMI is already considered concerning (with 18.5 being accepted as lower limit). What I was trying to say about some models being sickly skinny let me show you what I had in mind (not even worst example):
The guideline for healthy weight are determined by which weight range is least prone to weight related disease. Beauty is subjective obviously and I'm not going to discuss what I see as beautiful or not. But if it's healthy or not that is pretty objective after all.8 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »I do not have my own rules for healthy or not. In medicine there are guidelines. Weight under 20 BMI is already considered concerning (with 18.5 being accepted as lower limit). What I was trying to say about some models being sickly skinny let me show you what I had in mind (not even worst example):
The guideline for healthy weight are determined by which weight range is least prone to weight related disease. Beauty is subjective obviously and I'm not going to discuss what I see as beautiful or not. But if it's healthy or not that is pretty objective after all.
So what are you proposing? A legal BMI range for people to be allowed to model? Under or over a certain number and you are no longer able to work?0 -
Aside from anything else, Tess Holliday is a terrible person and for that alone shouldn't be considered a role model.
As for models, would I like to see not so slender women and girls (let's not forget the number of minors modelling, particularly in Europe and Asia) be a little bit higher on the BMI scale? Sure. But I think we also need to be educating our girls more that models are selling aspiration not reality, particularly runway and high end campaigns.
I do think there's an argument to use slim but not very thin women for mainstream stores purely because I'd like to see how a garment fits a more realistic body and not a walking coat hanger that I will never be.7 -
Well that is already how it works with measurements... A girl that won Next top model in my country ended up losing the contract because her hip measurement was too large (I believe it was in the low 90s in cm if I remember correct). And yes, I would actually implement minimum required BMI (18.5), and I do not see it as wrong. Those girls only got that small because they are required and competition is big and competition nowdays is 13 years old as well...
They are forced to be that size because now they expect it and have sample sizes in that size.3 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »Well that is already how it works with measurements... A girl that won Next top model in my country ended up losing the contract because her hip measurement was too large (I believe it was in the low 90s in cm if I remember correct). And yes, I would actually implement minimum required BMI (18.5), and I do not see it as wrong. Those girls only got that small because they are required and competition is big and competition nowdays is 13 years old as well...
They are forced to be that size because now they expect it and have sample sizes in that size.
Would you have a maximum allowable BMI as well? If your argument is that someone with a BMI associated with a higher risk of health complications shouldn't be allowed to work, does that go both ways?
And would you also ban women from acting, television journalism, and other public-facing occupations if their BMI went above or below a certain amount? Or is this just for models?0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Aside from anything else, Tess Holliday is a terrible person and for that alone shouldn't be considered a role model.
As for models, would I like to see not so slender women and girls (let's not forget the number of minors modelling, particularly in Europe and Asia) be a little bit higher on the BMI scale? Sure. But I think we also need to be educating our girls more that models are selling aspiration not reality, particularly runway and high end campaigns.
I do think there's an argument to use slim but not very thin women for mainstream stores purely because I'd like to see how a garment fits a more realistic body and not a walking coat hanger that I will never be.
Love how calling thinner women horribly insulting names is acceptable here.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Aside from anything else, Tess Holliday is a terrible person and for that alone shouldn't be considered a role model.
As for models, would I like to see not so slender women and girls (let's not forget the number of minors modelling, particularly in Europe and Asia) be a little bit higher on the BMI scale? Sure. But I think we also need to be educating our girls more that models are selling aspiration not reality, particularly runway and high end campaigns.
I do think there's an argument to use slim but not very thin women for mainstream stores purely because I'd like to see how a garment fits a more realistic body and not a walking coat hanger that I will never be.
Love how calling thinner women horribly insulting names is acceptable here.
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a dig at the women, just the fashion industry view of them, they literally want the clothes to hang and sample size clothes are tiny! I should have worded it better.4 -
I'm talking that models that are selling us regular size clothes should be healthy weight since underweight should not be regular. Make it a separate sizing such as petite and plus...they can still model for their size. Marketing underweight as regular is what I mind.3
-
Now I'm off to sleep... I said what I wanted... we should try to promote health in every aspect and way. Stay healthy people...and good night!
7 -
KorvapuustiPossu wrote: »I'm talking that models that are selling us regular size clothes should be healthy weight since underweight should not be regular. Make it a separate sizing such as petite and plus...they can still model for their size. Marketing underweight as regular is what I mind.
So you would allow models under a certain BMI to continue working, but they could only model a specific size range and designers would be required to use "regular" models for a certain percentage of their ads and their runway shows?
I'm still not sure what your actual proposal is. Or is there no actual proposal here and you're just trying to get something off your chest?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions