Comments | seldearslj: here's food for thought and not the body

seldearslj

here's food for thought and not the body

Sep 27, 2009 08:17

I'm Australian size 10-12 (about US 10-12). On the catwalk, I am considered a 'plus-size'.

Stylist Walks Out As Designer Uses Size 14 Models

While the article itself is cool for the use of a range of models, it's rather sad that I'm considered 'oversized' in anyone's terminology. And not because it would make me 'fat'.

feminism, meta

Comments 23

allisnow September 26 2009, 22:31:52 UTC

Honey, I'm a 10 and you're smaller than me. What size were those shorts you bought?

That said, isn't it pretty established that to be a successful 'model' you have to be 5'10"+ and thin as a rail?

seldearslj September 26 2009, 22:35:12 UTC

Er. I meant US size 8-10. Oops.

The denim shorts I bought were size 26 (made in Mexico), but the red cotton ones were size 7.

allisnow September 26 2009, 22:36:20 UTC

Er. I meant US size 8-10. Oops.

Closer to 8, I'd imagine :D

seldearslj September 26 2009, 22:37:14 UTC

And yeah, to be successful at modelling, you need to be practically anorexic; but it's still rather sad that my size (which is on the small side of average anyway) is considered "oversize" by the industry which sets 'beauty' standards.

Thread 11

lavidaessueno September 26 2009, 23:05:00 UTC

The whole sizing thing never fails to piss me off. I'm also on the small side of average, and yet because my hips are actually larger than my waist, I'm "oversized"? Time was, I'd be considered sexy for having curves, not "oversized."

seldearslj September 26 2009, 23:06:28 UTC

I'm sure that guys find hips sexy; it's just that sexy-as-defined-by-guys is not the same as sexy-as-defined-by-the-fashion-industry.

And, yeah, it's ridiculous.

allisnow September 26 2009, 23:23:31 UTC

it's just that sexy-as-defined-by-guys is not the same as sexy-as-defined-by-the-fashion-industry.

Because most of the guys in the industry are gay? Or at least metrosexual? ;)

lavidaessueno September 27 2009, 00:12:16 UTC

The editor in me is compelled to mention that the headline for the article is completely misleading. Nowhere in the article does it explain who the stylist was, the reasons for the walkout, etc., etc. Both the headline and the subhead lead the reader to believe that this will be the focus of the article, when in fact the headline contains more information than the article about that aspect of the article.

And unfortunately, guys are learning to think that what they see in the media is sexy. They're being trained to believe that size zero with improbably circular breasts is the very definition of beauty. Sigh.

Thread 5

arrietty September 27 2009, 07:40:38 UTC

Oh don't get me going on this... I so am against using the super skinny models. My 15 year old daughter is 6 foot and very thin, people are forever saying that she doesn't eat enough... I tell you she eats plenty *rolls eyes* *peers into empty pantry*

Apparently, according to the modelling criteria she is oversized. It just is not right to put this pressure on the young girls. Using size 12-14 models sounds great to me. Which, I might add, was my size *12* before I had kids and then I was told I was too thin. Which I wasn't but still... stops rambling*

seldearslj September 27 2009, 09:39:32 UTC

Using healthy models should be the criteria, whatever their size.

arrietty September 27 2009, 19:16:59 UTC

I agree. I know quite large ladies who are extremely healthy and very skinny ones who are definitely not.

eken95 September 27 2009, 08:44:22 UTC

Half of the problem is that the fashion industry doesn't relate to the retail fashion industry. All the creatives care about is their art on the canvass ie stick thin models who bare no relation to real women sizes.

seldearslj September 27 2009, 09:40:31 UTC

I never thought about the fashion-as-art vs. fashion-as-wearables - it's a good point, although it doesn't excuse the elevation of unhealthily (and, for 99.9% of the population, impossibly) skinny.

wiliqueen September 28 2009, 01:11:59 UTC

It doesn't excuse it, or make it one whit less destructive. And I'm not sure it helps anything to understand what's going on -- in some ways it's that much more frustrating.

But it's definitely true that a high-fashion model's primary function is not to be an ideal of beauty. It's to show the merchandise to best effect. And in most cases at this point in time, the merchandise is designed in the abstract.

This is the thing that the general public is largely unaware of, much the same way that the average TV viewer doesn't realize they're the product (being sold to advertisers), not the consumer.

saramund September 28 2009, 04:12:27 UTC

HOW can a size 10-12 be considered 'plus' when the AVERAGE size is 14-16?! It's just disgusting, the catwalk sizing standards, and devastating to the growing minds of young adults - and not to mention those of us who aren't CLOSE to a size 8, and our own self esteem - looking at those 'things' and then trying to see ourselves as normal, when we're bombarded with skeletons with skin.

I applauded the recent plus size fsshion show they did in Sydney - sizes 16 and above. ABOUT time, too!

As for you being 'oversized'?! Holy crap, that's just sad and scary to think of that!