Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-01-2009, 03:51 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
article from today's USA Today

USATODAY.com - Do thin models warp girls' body image?

I read in People Magazine that a size zero is now big on Kate Bosworth because she has gotten so thin



The promotion of the thin, sexy ideal in our culture has created a situation where the majority of girls and women don't like their bodies," says body-image researcher Sarah Murnen, professor of psychology at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. "And body dissatisfaction can lead girls to participate in very unhealthy behaviors to try to control weight."

Girls today, even very young ones, are being bombarded with the message that they need to be super-skinny to be sexy, says psychologist Sharon Lamb, co-author of Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers' Schemes.

It used to be that women would only occasionally see rail-thin models, such as Twiggy, the '60s fashion icon. "But now they see them every day. It's the norm," Lamb says, from ads, catalogs and magazines to popular TV shows such as America's Next Top Model and Project Runway. "They are seeing skinny models over and over again."

On top of that, gaunt images of celebrities such as Nicole Richie and Kate Bosworth are plastered on magazine covers, she says.
Obviously, anorexia is a problem and anyone afflicted should get help. BUT, you know what is a MUCH worse problem in America? OBESITY!!! We are the fattest nation in the world, and we're a country of overweight couch potatoes. And we're only getting fatter. It leads to diabetes, heart disease, and all sorts of chronic health problems. Many, many, many more people suffer from obesity than from anorexia in the U.S., and that's where the spotlight really needs to be shone.
__________________

LyricalDrug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2009, 03:56 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Of course obesity is a problem, but it's not an issue of anorexia vs obesity and which has the greatest number of sufferers. The issue here is the fact that these super thin models (and the magazines and the catwalks and the designers, etc.) are promoting the idea that any woman over a size 6 is "plus size" or obese, and that's ludicrous.

From the Glamour article. Don't mean to suggest that this is what you were suggesting but I'm sure some people would think that way..I'm also realistic enough to realize that many men and women would say that these women are not attractive/as attractive because of their size/weight.

Is showing larger-size women...unhealthy? It's a serious question: Amid the cheering for Lizzie Miller on glamour.com was a distinct strain of criticism from readers who worried the photo promoted obesity. First things first: Lizzie's not obese. (At 180 and 5'11, she's maybe a couple of pounds overweight.) But more than that, I don't buy that showing women in a variety of sizes will discourage heavier ones from maintaining a healthy weight. Glamour assistant editor Margarita Bertsos--who wrote about her own 75-pound weight loss for Glamour--said it best: "This photo in no way sends a message to me that I should quit taking care of my body... It has the complete opposite effect on me, reminding me to love myself, treat myself well (and that INCLUDES a healthy diet and exercise), and showing me that I can and should smile in my nakedness and belly rolls, because I'm worthy of that kind of that unabashed self-love right this second. We all are!" Amen.

To be clear, I'm not on the "real women have curves" bandwagon here, arguing that only bodies like Lizzie's are "real"--and that slender women are all unreal waifs who should just eat a cheeseburger and get over themselves. Turning the tables so we can bash one type instead of another isn't the answer. Celebrating the fact that we're all born different is. Think about it: In real life, women of all shapes and sizes have crazy sex appeal and killer confidence. Why should our own pages look any different?

We'll do our best to live up to this standard in the future: shooting models who diverge in every way from the cookie-cutter norm. Is it a retreat from fantasy? Of course not: If we wanted unadulterated reality, we could just print everyone's driver's-license picture. But I happen to think that a fantasy every reader can have a piece of is the most powerful fantasy of all. Thank you for encouraging us to try to provide it, and for pointing the way forward here. Your words inspire me daily.

Now tell me, what did you think when you first saw the group photo above? And how much reality, and how much fantasy, do you want in a magazine, and from the media?
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 10:30 AM   #83
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Thanks for commenting

Yes it is a gorgeous picture- I Googled for some other photos of her and she's beautiful
I agree. She is a lovely young woman. I think for too long that women have been told by the media, mags, etc. That we are not acceptable, no matter what size we are. I tell my grand daughter, all the time. She is beautiful. And not because of the color of her eyes, or how tall she is. But, because of her inner light and the kindness she shows to others.

All women and men are beautiful. That's a given. And we come in all colors and sizes.
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 10:44 AM   #84
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Of course obesity is a problem, but it's not an issue of anorexia vs obesity and which has the greatest number of sufferers. The issue here is the fact that these super thin models (and the magazines and the catwalks and the designers, etc.) are promoting the idea that any woman over a size 6 is "plus size" or obese, and that's ludicrous.

From the Glamour article. Don't mean to suggest that this is what you were suggesting but I'm sure some people would think that way..I'm also realistic enough to realize that many men and women would say that these women are not attractive/as attractive because of their size/weight.

Is showing larger-size women...unhealthy? It's a serious question: Amid the cheering for Lizzie Miller on glamour.com was a distinct strain of criticism from readers who worried the photo promoted obesity. First things first: Lizzie's not obese. (At 180 and 5'11, she's maybe a couple of pounds overweight.) But more than that, I don't buy that showing women in a variety of sizes will discourage heavier ones from maintaining a healthy weight. Glamour assistant editor Margarita Bertsos--who wrote about her own 75-pound weight loss for Glamour--said it best: "This photo in no way sends a message to me that I should quit taking care of my body... It has the complete opposite effect on me, reminding me to love myself, treat myself well (and that INCLUDES a healthy diet and exercise), and showing me that I can and should smile in my nakedness and belly rolls, because I'm worthy of that kind of that unabashed self-love right this second. We all are!" Amen.

To be clear, I'm not on the "real women have curves" bandwagon here, arguing that only bodies like Lizzie's are "real"--and that slender women are all unreal waifs who should just eat a cheeseburger and get over themselves. Turning the tables so we can bash one type instead of another isn't the answer. Celebrating the fact that we're all born different is. Think about it: In real life, women of all shapes and sizes have crazy sex appeal and killer confidence. Why should our own pages look any different?

We'll do our best to live up to this standard in the future: shooting models who diverge in every way from the cookie-cutter norm. Is it a retreat from fantasy? Of course not: If we wanted unadulterated reality, we could just print everyone's driver's-license picture. But I happen to think that a fantasy every reader can have a piece of is the most powerful fantasy of all. Thank you for encouraging us to try to provide it, and for pointing the way forward here. Your words inspire me daily.

Now tell me, what did you think when you first saw the group photo above? And how much reality, and how much fantasy, do you want in a magazine, and from the media?
Well said!

I don't think 180 pounds at 5'11 is obese. More like athletic. Like most women, I fall into the in between range. I was slender. When, I was young. I wore a size 6. But, at age 52, I weigh twenty pounds more. Than, I did twenty five years ago. Pregnancy, menopause, being on medication. Will do that. I walk two to three miles, almost everyday. Eat much healthier, than I did in my twenties. And I wear a size twelve dress. American petite sizes. At 5'4" 145 pounds. I am not overweight nor under. And years of Martial Arts training has given me, good muscle mass. Very important for women as we age.
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 11:55 AM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Great post, Mrs. S. Weight is not the sole measure of health. There are healthy heavier people, unhealthy thinner ones. Too many things play into health. I suspect that a lot of people are less offended by obesity as a health issue than they see it as a character issue and base their judgments on the whole person accordingly.

Obesity is a problem which shouldn't be minimized. But it should be treated as other potential health problems--between a person and his/her doctor without unsoliticited
"helpful" advice.

Beautiful pictures.
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 10:44 PM   #86
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Exactly......and being of a medium frame, bone size. I should weigh more than a woman who is my height and smaller built. Plus, a certain amount of body fat is necessary. Especially for women, around the hip area. It will help to protect us from fractures. Later on in life.

Medical Obesity......more than thirty pounds over, what your doctor has determined is a healthy weight for you.

Everyone is different and life style plays an important factor.
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2009, 10:45 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
^Yes-according to my size and weight I'd be considered "obese" by some standards I suppose. I'm 5' 9 1/2 and I have a "large frame". But I certainly don't consider myself to be obese or significantly overweight, and looking at me I can't imagine that anyone would think so, unless they have an insane standard of thinness that they are comparing me to. If I lost 30 pounds, first of all I can't do that and secondly I'd have to literally starve myself. I was always skinny up to a certain point in my life (it's so easy when you're much younger, well it was for me), now I just try to do the best I can with what I have. I lost 15 pounds last year and I've put some of that back on, unfortunately. I felt better physically and that's what bugs me the most.

There is no doubt in my mind that it's seen as a character issue

Image of ultra-thin Ralph Lauren model sparks outrage on Shine


Another website to garner attention for its dedication to exposing photo retouching offenses is Jezebel.com. Speaking on the subject of retouching, Jezebel editor-in-chief Anna Holmes told Yahoo!, "I don't see any point in retouching anymore ... The cat's out of the bag." She added, "I think Americans in particular are sick of having the wool pulled over their eyes ... even if it's regarding fashion models and actresses. The more they do this sort of retouching -- and then try to justify it, as the editor of SELF magazine recently did -- the less anyone believes anything else they have to say, or show. They are, in a sense, digging their own (shallow) graves."
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2009, 11:54 PM   #88
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Bravo Mrs. Springsteen!

Sounds to me, as though you are athletic in built and this is a good thing. The medical weight charts, have never taken into consideration. Family genetics, life style, medical conditions, medications the patient is on or what is actually healthy, for each individual. All of us are unique.

According to those same silly weight charts. Most professional athletes are over weight. Something to think about.

It's about time. We are thought of as sexy!
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2009, 09:32 AM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
This is the same model who was made to look like a lollipop head by Ralph Lauren^


5'10, 120 pounds

BY Carrie Melago
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, October 14th 2009, 8:48 AM
Filippa Hamilton says she was fired for being 'overweight.'

Ralph Lauren's clothing company fired the model whose body looked emaciated in a touched-up ad because she weighed too much, the woman told the Daily News Tuesday.

Filippa Hamilton - whose hips appeared slimmer than her head in the recent altered ad - said her contract was terminated in April because she was too heavy.

"They fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn't fit in their clothes anymore," she said.

The 5-foot-10, 120-pound stunner was amazed to see her body digitally distorted for Ralph Lauren Blue Label.

"I was shocked to see that super skinny girl with my face," she told the Daily News. "It's very sad, I think, that Ralph Lauren could do something like that."

Hamilton, 23, worked for Ralph Lauren since about 2002 and considered the company like a second family - until she was bounced.

Then out of nowhere last week, the altered ad - which appeared only in Japan - caused a sensation and drew the ire of critics who thought it appeared sickly and unrealistic.

Polo Ralph Lauren said in a statement Tuesday night that Filippa is a "beautiful and healthy" woman but their relationship ended "as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract with us."

"The image in question was mistakenly released and used in a department store in Japan and was not the approved image which ran in the U.S. We take full responsibility," the statement said. "This error has absolutely no connection to our relationship with Filippa Hamilton."

Hamilton's lawyer, Geoffrey Menin, said the image is "gross distortion of how she really looks and which we fear will be extremely damaging to her."

Hamilton is concerned about its impact on the public.

"I think they owe American women an apology, a big apology," she said. "I'm very proud of what I look like, and I think a role model should look healthy."
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2009, 12:53 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM

Now Barbie has cankles...

NY Daily News Oct 13th

So now Christian Louboutin thinks Barbie has cankles.

The French stiletto maker is redesigning the classic American doll to come out here in May.

Considered a genius by Ciara and Angelina Jolie for slathering red lacquer on the bottom of 5-inch heels, Louboutin "found Barbie's ankles too fat," Women's Wear Daily reports.

Never mind that Louboutin's people now insist it's not the ankles, but the arches, that the designer is making Mattel change on his new stick-legged Barbie. This could be the biggest scandal for the toymaker since Pregnant Midge.

Does this mean Barbie's bff, "So In Style Trichelle," will soon get a tummy tuck? Will it be implants for "Fashion Fever Kira"?

This comes on the, um, heels of Louboutin's fellow Parisian Karl Lagerfeld's declaration that: "No one wants to see curvy women. You've got fat mothers with their bags of chips sitting in front of the television and saying that thin models are ugly."


Fat mothers. Nice. The Chanel designer, who just stopped carbo-loading a few years ago, was reacting to the decision of editors at the magazine Brigitte to replace skinny models with "real women" in fashion shoots.

Is Lagerfeld afraid his designs won't really work unless you're a size zero? How hard is it to make Lily Allen or Audrey Tautou, his spokesmodels, look good? Or Kate Moss or Nicole Kidman?

Since publication of the book "French Women Don't Get Fat," we've known that French women are thinner than American women - 9% overweight versus 60%.

If you find this galling, know that the contempt for women who don't have the bodies of girls - or even boys - isn't restricted to designers in France.

Last week, Ralph Lauren was forced to admit that his staff had severely Photoshopped model Filippa Hamilton in one of his ads after blogger Cory Doctorow humiliated him on boingboing.net

"Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis," Doctorow exclaimed - and the outcry went viral. Ditto when Self magazine airbrushed pounds off Kelly Clarkson.

Yet in August, readers exulted when Glamour featured the photograph of model Lizzi Miller. Yes, she looks like Grace Kelly, but the tall 20-year-old is 180 pounds. She was in the nude, and the flaws showed. Young women saw something familiar: themselves, and they were happy about it.

It matters.

This month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 25% of girls in American high schools and 11% of boys reported eating disorders.

Worse, a Mayo Clinic study found anorexia is spreading to young children, with Dr. Barton Blinder reporting patients as young as 4.

The new American role models aren't fashion models on the Tic Tac-and-cigarettes diet, but athletic women like Michelle Obama.

Any designer who doesn't recognize that will be left behind as the next generation gets healthier and stronger.

By the way, didn't Lagerfeld feature fur-covered helmets as an accessory at his latest runway show? Why do we listen to this guy?
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2009, 11:23 PM   #91
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Excellent article.....thanks for the read.

Michelle Obama!
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 12:31 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post

Image of ultra-thin Ralph Lauren model sparks outrage on Shine


Another website to garner attention for its dedication to exposing photo retouching offenses is Jezebel.com. Speaking on the subject of retouching, Jezebel editor-in-chief Anna Holmes told Yahoo!, "I don't see any point in retouching anymore ... The cat's out of the bag." She added, "I think Americans in particular are sick of having the wool pulled over their eyes ... even if it's regarding fashion models and actresses. The more they do this sort of retouching -- and then try to justify it, as the editor of SELF magazine recently did -- the less anyone believes anything else they have to say, or show. They are, in a sense, digging their own (shallow) graves."
I don't see the big deal with re-touching. I guess for me it's always been a given. Anyone who's basing their self-worth on high fashion advertisements has bigger issues than whether or not the photos are retouched.

I retouch pictures of myself, my dogs, my family.... I recently took my cousin's senior pictures and re-touched them. My aunt wanted some acne smoothed over, I also whitened his teeth a bit, removed glare and flash bursts on his glasses, removed a shadow behind his head, rain drops on his shirt since it started raining...I see these are pretty minor retouches, especially since I was using fill flash for his photos, and the flash often exaggerates colors and textures (like lens glare, acne, 5 o'clock shadow, etc). Even with the retouching I feel the finished photo is a more accurate representation of my cousin.
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 12:39 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
But you're not retouching them to look like freakish disproportionate lollipop people. She's hardly just a "better" version of herself there, that beautiful Ralph Lauren model.

It's not about basing your self worth on it- just about getting down to some more realistic images of what real people look like.
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 01:42 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 07:15 PM
True but I guess my response is, what's the point? Who cares? It's high fashion, not anything that represents mainstream people or culture anyway. They are always pushing the envelop, it's more of an art form than advertising commercial clothing that normal people will buy.

If you look at catalogs of clothing that normal people buy, you will see normal people (Land's End, LL Bean, etc).
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2009, 07:09 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 04:20 AM   #96
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Why do people buy Self or Glamour? What are most of them looking to get out of it? Would they keep buying them if most of the models featured in them actually looked like 'people from the LL Bean catalogue'?

I don't regularly buy any magazines because of the unnecessary expense, but if I want some mindless reading for an airplane trip or something, I'll sometimes buy a cooking magazine, preferably one that looks to me like it actually has some recipes I'll want to cut out and use. And it's clear to me that the market for many of these magazines--Bon Appetit, say, or Martha Stewart's magazine--couldn't possibly be accounted for solely or even mostly by people who actually cook like that, because very few people do. So I have to assume there are lots of people who just find it relaxing and pleasurable in a fantasy kind of way to simply look at those kinds of things. Which is fine, so long as you're not beating yourself up for lacking the time and money (and/or, in truth, the interest and therefore motivation) to prepare an elaborate tapas spread or surprise your coworkers with Halloween-themed petits fours--in which case I'm then mystified as to why you'd keep buying and reading them.

I mean most of those magazines, and pretty much all 'fashion'/'beauty'/'image' magazines as well, are fundamentally consumeristic in nature; they're basically about harnessing common desires (wanting to be attractive to others, wanting to eat good food) and directing them towards various products out there which you could buy. And cultivating fantasy is a great way to do that. Same with the major 'men's magazines'--they're not quite as wholly devoted to physical attractiveness and fashion themes as the major 'women's magazines' are, but they certainly do have lots of fashion articles and ads, and you won't see a less-than-perfectly-buff,-chiseled guy in those particular features, even though that's clearly not the average American man. You're not going to successfully sell many pricey haute-couture clothes (or cosmetics) or pricey haute-cuisine ingredients to people by telling them how beautiful or how impressive a cook they already are, so your goal is gonna be to get them thinking how much more beautiful and impressive they could be if they looked or cooked Just Like That. These publications don't exist to build people's self-esteem; there's no money to be made in that, particularly for the manufacturers whose ad revenues, product samples and so forth these magazines depend on for material. Sure, if and when these manufacturers find that featuring more 'average, representative'-looking people in their ads (and ads-masquerading-as-articles) actually drives up sales, then they'll do it; otherwise, not. These people didn't create the cultural situation where women tend to be more valued for their looks than men are; they're just exploiting it because it's profitable.

Aggghhh. This all sounds so inane, but on some level the whole thing IS inane. You can go out in public and look around you at all the couples, and all the groups of female friends who are out there, and needless to say most of the women you'll see don't look like Ralph Lauren models, yet all those boyfriends and husbands are obviously happy with them as they are, and their female friends aren't walking along bashing each other's appearance either. The social realities of appearance may not be exactly how we'd like them to be, but they're clearly not telling us that ordinary-looking women are doomed to be ignored and unloved either, so why let some stupid fashion ad make one feel that way?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 08:28 AM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.
Those mags are about looks and beauty and self-image, so it makes sense that they put the "beautiful" popular people on the cover. I guess I don't really see them as magazines for "normal" women. For me that would be the Parade insert, The New Yorker, Harpers...magazines that are actually about something and do not focus on image and style.
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009, 09:10 AM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,165
Local Time: 11:15 PM
I bought a mag recently and its got Renee on the cover and its obviously airbrushed to look thinner/great but its a pain in the ass to see. really.

we see these celebs, even younger ones with the bad photos of 'bad moment' with lighting, no make up etc....and then ............I dunno.

mind you Posh Spice has lost a LOT of weight, yet her face is fine. I figured only in your 20s would your face stay full. she looks crazy bad!

good to see my Jolie looking better/healthier/happier!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009, 10:57 PM   #99
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I agree to some extent-but normal people buy Self Magazine and when Kelly Clarkson is on the cover why not show her as herself and not retouch her to look several sizes smaller? We know what her real appearance is, so what's the point? Why do they do that? Women won't buy the magazine if the woman on the cover is "too big"? I haven't bought Glamour Magazine in well over a year but I bought the one with that nude photo of the "plus sized" (really over a size 6) models. I felt like supporting that.

It trickles down from high fashion to magazines that are allegedly for more "normal" women. And it's just the sensory overload of these images and the possible effects that they can have.
What is even scarier is when little girls see these "retouched, glossy, perfect photos" while food shopping with mommy.
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 10:05 AM   #100
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Of course plus size during NY Fashion week is not really plus size-definitely relative. I'd like to see some photos.

time.com

The old super-sized vs. super-skinny debate is set to rear its ugly head again this week at New York Fashion Week. Organizers have announced that it will host the first plus-sized runway show in its history.

The official definition of plus-sized is U.S. dress size 14 or higher- not particularly big by most of our standards- especially considering that two thirds of American women are over size 14.

One of the show's organizers, Nancy Le Winter, editorial director at OneStopPlus.com, said, “It's simply about time that fashion speaks to all women.” She hailed the show as “the first time that women can look around and say ‘Oh my god I can wear that!'” “It's fashion democracy at its best.”

With 28% of Americans being officially obese, the question of whether the promotion of the ‘plus-sized' look is a good idea is bound to be asked. But when TIME spoke to plus-size super model Crystal Renn last year, she was very clear on the issue. On her transition from anorexic to ‘plus-sized' and healthy she said, “Women have come so far in the past 100 years...but what holds them back is lack of confidence and self-hatred.” Talking about herself at size 0, she said “I was at the lowest level you can be.” “It was only when I accepted myself that I managed to achieve [my goals] in life and work.”
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×