Okay, seriously what is with the obsession with "thin?"

[Mister Earl]

As I guy, I gotta say, I go for "healthy" over "bag-of-antlers" every time.

 

[MortFurd]

As I guy, I gotta say, I go for "healthy" over "bag-of-antlers" every time.

I'll have to remember that one. Very descriptive.

 

[Mister Earl]

It's a euphanism prominent on a site called Fark. And as an aside, women don't like hearing other women referred to as that, especially if they aspire to obtain some measure of antler-ness themselves. I found that out the hard way once...

#EDIT: On Fark, they often say things like, "You've got to be kidding me. You could carve a roast with her FACE."

 

[MortFurd]

It's a euphanism prominent on a site called Fark. And as an aside, women don't like hearing other women referred to as that, especially if they aspire to obtain some measure of antler-ness themselves. I found that out the hard way once...

#EDIT: On Fark, they often say things like, "You've got to be kidding me. You could carve a roast with her FACE."

MMmmpf. Haven't been to Fark.com in ages.

The (aspiring) antler bags wouldn't like me at ALL. I'm likely to say "give that girl a sandwich" when I see one on TV - If I don't say "force feed her a whole bunch of sandwiches."

I'm not up for 400lb, "gotta make two trips to haul ass," but a little cushion on the bones is a GOOD thing.

 

[Just thinking]

The closer to the bone, the sweeter the meat.

An adage from my youth, discovered to be less than perfectly true ...

Correct. It really bewilders me as to why girls try to thin themselves to the point of virtually eliminating their female shape. For chrissake, some go so far as to look like skinny boys.

 

[MortFurd]

Correct. It really bewilders me as to why girls try to thin themselves to the point of virtually eliminating their female shape. For chrissake, some go so far as to look like skinny boys.

And then they combine the two modern exteremes: So skinny they make Twiggy look fat, and humongous plastic hooters so big that they really need a wheelbarrow to carry them in.

 

[roger]

You know, it's interesting. If this was over in religion and philosophy, and we changed a few words around (fashion=Jesus), everyone would be crying for evidence and faulting people for long posts with nothing backed up.

That's more an observation than a criticism, as I feel we go too far the other way on some topics (it's pretty hard to just chat about religion, tossing ideas around, on here).

But, with that said, is there any actual evidence for any of the last two pages? I particularly doubt the conspiracy theories - make people feel bad about themselves so they go and buy a lot of expensive 'slimming' creams, etc. It's useful to note that you can combine several simple processes/behaviors, and end up with remarkably complex systems as a result. I'm reminded of MIT Minsky's robots - a few simple behaviors result in fairly complex social organizations. So, I'm extremely wary of looking at the output of a system and decoding motives and intentions from it.

Eddie Dane's post in #59 rings true to me, in that he postulates several simple mechanisms that require no malice on the part of everyone, yet explains a lot of the complex output we see - trends changing in near lockstep, etc. Yet, it's still not proof.

I don't know if this study is any good, but this claims that skinny models make women feel bad about themselves, but they value the line more highly than if it was exhibited by average women. If true, that makes a lot of sense. You can gush all you want about the 'quality' of a piece of clothing, and it is somewhat true - super cheap stuff will rip out at the stiches before you are done with it - but except for bespoke stuff you wear for 40 years you don't need the quality to last generations, and frankly I suspect a lot of it is way overblown. We know companies like coach have a 40% profit margin - they create a brand with the image of quality, and this allows them to mark it up far beyond what the production costs.

So, if so, why wouldn't you use thin models to sell your stuff if you are aiming for a high value brand image?

 

[Marcus]

This is a common belief, but an untrue one. At her heaviest (and during a time when she was considered to be letting herself get "plump") Marilyn Monroe was a size 10. And a size 10 in her day was smaller than a size 10 is now.


http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp


Also, the desirability of women with small waists is not a new one. Anyone who has read the "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, which have as their focus her life in the 1800s, knows that her father would often boast that her mother, when they married, had a waist small enough to put his hands around.

It's silly to act as though this is some phenomenon inherent to america's top model or the magazines of today. Take a look at some of the ancient hindu statues for other examples of buxom women with etremely small waists and lithe bodies. It is a body type that has long been considered desirable.

Marilyn still looks chubby to me. Product of my enviornment, I guess. The photoshopped image in the OP looks unattractively skinny though.

 

[MortFurd]

Roger, I don't know that anyone here is postulating a conspiracy of any sort. Not in any organized fashion (no pun intended,) at any rate.

I think we're all talking about skewed perceptions that have built up in and around fashions. I don't know that any of folks in the fashion industry have actually done studies or analyzed their sales to see what works best - I don't know that they haven't, either.

I do know that they catch a lot of flack from women's groups for promoting a really whacked perception of what an attractive woman should look like. Maybe those groups are completely wrong, too. Maybe those unrealistically skinny models aren't the cause of rising bulimia and anorexia rates.

I'd still feel a damned sight better about things if models didn't look literally emaciated.


As for not buying clothes to last:

I buy all my stuff to last - except for things that are going to get destroyed in the course of normal use, like the blue jeans I wear to do work on the house and in the yard.

I have pants that are 10 years old and still look good. I have shirts that old that don't show any signs of wear. I have socks fer crap's sake that are pushing 20 and still look like they did when I bought them. These are clothes in daily use.

These things will wear out eventually, but I don't have to buy new clothes everytime I turn around, either. I buy good quality, but I don't buy by brand. Brands don't interest me, except in so far as I don't buy a brand again if the clothes wear out fast.

Who buys stuff just because it is "in?" I don't.

 

[MortFurd]

So, if so, why wouldn't you use thin models to sell your stuff if you are aiming for a high value brand image?

I wanted to address this separately.

Maybe the study that you pointed out is correct in that thin models are associated with high value brands.
I would point out two things, however:
1. The perception that thin models=high value brand may be an effect rather than a cause. The high value brands (the ones with famous names and high prices, at any rate) seem to be the ones who started the whole emaciated model stuff.
2. It may be nothing more than the perception that the clothes modeled by the Auschwitz survivors are of better quality. If the famous brands (with truly better quality) started it, that may be the cause of the perception - which today may no longer hold true, since all models look like they skip lunch too often.

The whole "heroin chic" thing (emaciated, hollow eyes, dark rings under the eye, etc.) just baffles me. I've seen junkies who look like the models we're talking about. The only real difference in appearance is that the junkies aren't as likely to have had a recent bath as the models. Seriously: Models make (or are made to make) themselves look like someone who's primary goal in life is to get enough smack to at least avoid the withdrawal symptoms.
The Pirelli calendar creeps me right the hell out. It is made for rich people - you can't buy one, you have to be important enough in the world that they give you one. Every year that it comes out, some of the pictures end up in magazines or videos of the photo shoots are shown on TV. The women in these things look like somebody trawled the Berlin "Zoo" trainstation (infamous for its junkies,) picked twelve female junkies at random, gave them a bath and kept them doped while making the photos.

What kind of messed up person finds that attractive? Somebody sure seems to, but it ain't me.

 

[iknownothing]

Don't know if it's been said already, but I think it's simply that tall, thin, leggy models make the clothes look better, regardless of whether anyone thinks the models themselves look better. (Except for a few well known supermodels, the models are usually incidental to the clothes.) Models usually have bodies that are exaggerated in ways that show off clothes to their best advantage. Even in fashion sketches (look at the drawings on a pattern at a fabric store), the people are drawn with an extreme look.

I think designers like to design for the most fun-for-them bodies: proportions that give them the most playground to design on. Those bodies can carry off all kinds of different looks. Designers can go for extremes. And of course they do go as extreme as they can -- look at the clothes at a fashion show.

Minor example: most women's clothes are designed for small-to-medium busts, which most models have. Larger busts usually get in the way and interrupt the flow of a look. (Not counting clothes that are designed to be all about the breasts; just talking about everyday clothes.)

Makes it quite frustrating when, say, the big fashion idea of the season is those empire-waist tops that filled every rack in every store last year. They looked great on those "almost-A cup" models, and were different from the last few years (and people like variety so they keep wanting to buy new & different styles). But when I went to the store to buy some tops, the "empire waists" on those tops cut across me mid-bust and just looked ridiculous.

I guess they could design clothes that are cut specifically to fit women with larger busts and short torsos and that would be great for me personally, but there's a very limited range of what would fit that requirement. And then those clothes would look wrong on women with every other body type.

If fashion designers were really any good, they'd be able to dress anyone* to make them look fabulous.

* - I mean literally anyone: one leg, no arms, John Merrick, etc.

Yeah, but if they are that good, their clothes will look even better on the models.

 

[roger]

Roger, I don't know that anyone here is postulating a conspiracy of any sort. Not in any organized fashion (no pun intended,) at any rate..

looking back there is only one post claiming that - it just stuck out in my mind. But my larger point was we had a lot of speculation without a lot of linking to studies. I just find it curious that this form of chat works better in some fora than others

[quoote]As for not buying clothes to last:[/quote]Sure. My point is you don't need to pay Prada prices to get good quality, you probably just want to stay away from Wal Mart where each year they force their manufactures to come in a bit cheaper than last year. But they try to project the image that you are getting something superior. Sometimes you are - better leathers and whatever. And a really well done hand stitched bag is likely to last longer than a machine stitched bag. But most women don't need a bag that lasts 40 years, as the look will be dated in 5 years.

 

[roger]

I wanted to address this separately.

Maybe the study that you pointed out is correct in that thin models are associated with high value brands.
I would point out two things, however:

Sure, to your two points.

The whole "heroin chic" thing (emaciated, hollow eyes, dark rings under he eye, etc.) just baffles me.

Okay, to me it seems super obvious. It's "artsy". It's not meant to say "look like this, this is a really good look". It's meant (I'm supposing) to create a feel for 'high art' or whatever. Think of the perfume ads that play like a Fellini film. There's no coherent message in them, which often gets riffed on on shows like SNL, but they are evoking something -art - and thus trying to tie in the idea of 'quality', such that they can charge $300 for an ounce of smelly alcohol.

And it is working, even on you, right? I mean, those ads are iconic - you remember them. I'll bet those ads resulted in a lot of sales, and not to people that wanted to look like they shoot up heroin.

If you shoot just another model standing around in clothes, what do you have? Just another model and some more clothes. Let's face it, there isn't a lot of difference between a $30 pair of jeans and a $500 pair except image. You don't get image with just another photograph. Heroin chic gets you image. A woman with a cigarette in a long holder lounging beside irish wolfhounds gets you image. A 13yo made up to look 30 gets you image. Etc.

Or so I guess. I'm no ad executive.

 

[rustypouch]

Don't know if it's been said already, but I think it's simply that tall, thin, leggy models make the clothes look better, regardless of whether anyone thinks the models themselves look better. (Except for a few well known supermodels, the models are usually incidental to the clothes.) Models usually have bodies that are exaggerated in ways that show off clothes to their best advantage. Even in fashion sketches (look at the drawings on a pattern at a fabric store), the people are drawn with an extreme look.

I think designers like to design for the most fun-for-them bodies: proportions that give them the most playground to design on. Those bodies can carry off all kinds of different looks. Designers can go for extremes. And of course they do go as extreme as they can -- look at the clothes at a fashion show.

Minor example: most women's clothes are designed for small-to-medium busts, which most models have. Larger busts usually get in the way and interrupt the flow of a look. (Not counting clothes that are designed to be all about the breasts; just talking about everyday clothes.)

Makes it quite frustrating when, say, the big fashion idea of the season is those empire-waist tops that filled every rack in every store last year. They looked great on those "almost-A cup" models, and were different from the last few years (and people like variety so they keep wanting to buy new & different styles). But when I went to the store to buy some tops, the "empire waists" on those tops cut across me mid-bust and just looked ridiculous.

I guess they could design clothes that are cut specifically to fit women with larger busts and short torsos and that would be great for me personally, but there's a very limited range of what would fit that requirement. And then those clothes would look wrong on women with every other body type.



Yeah, but if they are that good, their clothes will look even better on the models.

Exactly.

Fashion models are not hired for their sexiness.

It's also lazy designers. They don't know which model will wear which clothes on the runway, so if the models are all the same size, with no curves, they know that the clothes will fit on them all.

Plus it makes the photography easier. Skinny models with pronounced born structure are easier to make look good in photos. With normal people facial contours are normally defined by lighting. With models a flat, direct lighting is normally used. This minimizes pores and imperfections in the skin. In this case facial contours come from makeup.

So having skinny models minimizes distractions from the clothes by pretty girls, and makes life easier for others in the industry.

 

[elgarak]

Exactly.

Fashion models are not hired for their sexiness.

It's also lazy designers. They don't know which model will wear which clothes on the runway, so if the models are all the same size, with no curves, they know that the clothes will fit on them all.

Plus it makes the photography easier. Skinny models with pronounced born structure are easier to make look good in photos. With normal people facial contours are normally defined by lighting. With models a flat, direct lighting is normally used. This minimizes pores and imperfections in the skin. In this case facial contours come from makeup.

So having skinny models minimizes distractions from the clothes by pretty girls, and makes life easier for others in the industry.

I recall an interview with Shawna Trpcic. She's a TV and movie costume designer -- she did the Joss Whedon shows "Firefly" and "Dollhouse", for example. She considers dressing most modern actresses as "boring": "It's just like dressing the boys". No creative challenge, although it makes the job easier for all the other people involved in a production. Anyhoo, she was extremely happy about getting to design for Christina Hendricks, of "Mad Men" fame. "She's so incredibly curvy". It was much more satisfying for her to actually dress a womanly figure, and to design 'real' dresses.

 

[Travis]

Christina was also in Firefly. She was almost traded for Vera.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you saying WOMEN find these scarecrows attractive? Or think someone else does?

I think it was more about gay men and some women.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I recall an interview with Shawna Trpcic. She's a TV and movie costume designer -- she did the Joss Whedon shows "Firefly" and "Dollhouse", for example. She considers dressing most modern actresses as "boring": "It's just like dressing the boys". No creative challenge, although it makes the job easier for all the other people involved in a production. Anyhoo, she was extremely happy about getting to design for Christina Hendricks, of "Mad Men" fame. "She's so incredibly curvy". It was much more satisfying for her to actually dress a womanly figure, and to design 'real' dresses.

I remember hearing that Joss had the actress playing Kaylee gain 20 lbs for her role(if he only did that to some of the girls on Buffy). She looked great.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think it was more about gay men and some women.

So basically the ones who are supposed to think "wow, this looks soo gorgeous, I must buy this" are the drag queens?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Exactly.

Fashion models are not hired for their sexiness.

It's also lazy designers. They don't know which model will wear which clothes on the runway, so if the models are all the same size, with no curves, they know that the clothes will fit on them all.

Plus it makes the photography easier. Skinny models with pronounced born structure are easier to make look good in photos. With normal people facial contours are normally defined by lighting. With models a flat, direct lighting is normally used. This minimizes pores and imperfections in the skin. In this case facial contours come from makeup.

So having skinny models minimizes distractions from the clothes by pretty girls, and makes life easier for others in the industry.

That may or may not be so, but it doesn't explain photoshopping them afterwards into even more male proportions.

Whatever one-size-fits-all those clothes were made for, obviously that model had already fit into them. Right? I mean, they even have the original photo with her wearing the same clothes.

Whatever bone or facial structure they needed for flat lighting, well, they didn't seem to retouch the face shadows or not by any visible amount, so I'm guessing it was already ok for that.

Basically if they have to hire skinny, same-size women, fine, but the girl we're talking about was already good enough for those clothes. What they did was photoshop her even further, into something which (A) has male proportions, and (B) quite disturbingly unhealthy ones at that.

I'm not even asking them to start hiring short and wide women. Just to leave her as she is, fer crying out loud.

I mean, geeze, LOOK at her. Not only they managed to give her a male shoulders to hips ratio, the retouching of the shadows and creases on the chest basically removed her breasts too. She now looks like a guy with some mild pecs and an effeminate face. They might as well give her a bulge in the pants too, and be done with it.

That's waay beyond just hiring a model with a standard size.

Seriously, whichever artist had that idea of making her look better, should be moved to photoshop men's wear instead, he's obviously more qualified to judge "sexy" there