i know, i hate how in some places they use a normal sized model to model the plus size range because really they always fit nicer on the models until you try it on and realise it only looked nice because it was on a size 10 person.
"Its not how long a star shines, what is remembered is the brightness of the light"
i know, i hate how in some places they use a normal sized model to model the plus size range because really they always fit nicer on the models until you try it on and realise it only looked nice because it was on a size 10 person.
wordddddd.
Its the most ludicrous thing ever. ¬_¬
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
3) It's difficult to find a lot of them in stores. You mostly have to shop online. When you're shopping and you just don't see something and you keep not seeing it, it's difficult to make a fuss because we're not programmed to remember stuff we didn't see.
Maybe it's just the shops I go in to, but I have yet to see a size 4. Other than Next (who are incredibly generous with their sizing!) I would struggle to name another shop that had 6s. A size 8 is very common, but the shops usually only ever have one on the rack. But like I say, it could just be where I tend to shop.
Quote:
I mean, really. I wear clothes for different reasons. I'd be a lot more interested in a shirt if it was shown on a variety of figures (in an online store anyway) to be able to see and to better imagine what it might look like on me.
I think that's a nice idea, but in practice probably wouldn't work. Or you'd end up having to pay more for the clothes so the shop could recoup the additional costs in doing that. I know that New Look detail the model's height and the size that she is wearing. But the fact is that not all women look the same, and just because one can pull off a size 10 top doesn't mean that all size 10s will.
On the subject of store manikins there was one in new look yesterday that was bent over with a bum crack on show .... not cool, in fact I was slightly disturbed.
Haha! I'd have been so tempted to stick a pen or something down the crack...
On the subject of using different types of models, I'd agree with you, but I wear the same size as one of the Next models, and am pretty much the same height and shape, but for 6 seasons (or so) I've been buying clothes she's modelling and they don't fit in remotely the same way. Models get pinned into clothes and touched up so they're wearing the clothes how they would look ideally. In practise, we women come in a hundred different shapes, so we have to try each and every item on ourselves. Apparently, the best we can hope for is a decent returns policy!
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level & beat you with experience
I'm so glad that only anorexics are potentially triggered by size zero models.
Being bulimic, my eating disorder is significantly lesser & size zero doesn't bother me.
Asda do a 4. Many shops though only do a 4 in their 'petites range' which is fine.
As said above though, its not the clothing size in itself, its the use of that size on mannequins and worse still models who are very tall already and should never be a size 4-6.
As for larger clothes, its true, you dont see a size 30 mannequin, do you. People have to wear something, its about what size they suggest the clothes wearer should be that is a problem.
I think there should be a variety of sized mannequins in shops so different cut/styles of clothes can be shown on various sizes, ie, sizes 8-16 [which is a reasonable and more attainable size range].
And I think companies should be sued for using underweight models. It's unhealthy and wrong for both the model and the consumer, the only person who 'wins' is the company, and it is not in the interests of public health to use unhealthy models.
I completely agree with Chels, I think there is more prejudice in that article than understanding of who gets effected by these tiny sized models. It infuriates me.
Whilst I agree with most of what has been said, I want to highlight one point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissAnonymous
And I think companies should be sued for using underweight models. It's unhealthy and wrong for both the model and the consumer, the only person who 'wins' is the company, and it is not in the interests of public health to use unhealthy models.
Be careful with this point - there is a HUGE difference between underweight and unhealthy, and being underweight doesn't automatically = unhealthy, just as being unhealthy =/= underweight.
I didn't mean, and would be horrified if it sounded like I meant a healthy weight equals a healthy body, but an unhealthy weight does equal and unhealthy body to some degree and being significantly underweight is unhealthy. Part of it is discretion and being individual but there are a hell of a lot of models that under eat to maintain their weight, that much is known.
I have been technically underweight in some Dr's veiws for the majority of my life, I have not been ill all my life so I do see you can be underweight and of reasonable health. I think the point people are seeing is the models used look ill, gaunt and unhealthy. How else can you easily work out who is 'safe' to model that would be a workable method? There is obviously something wrong with the way things are done right now.
Yeah regardless of health there needs to be a visual standard. 8 - 16 is visually healthy regardless of whats going on inside... and for something that is so visual, and competitive, I think the appearance here needs to take precedence...and the health stuff can be dealt with separately.
Maybe it's just the shops I go in to, but I have yet to see a size 4. Other than Next (who are incredibly generous with their sizing!) I would struggle to name another shop that had 6s. A size 8 is very common, but the shops usually only ever have one on the rack. But like I say, it could just be where I tend to shop.
I also dislike the fact that people are seeming to equate being a "REAL" elwoman as one that has curves.
Curves and womanhood are inseparable. Men's and women's hips are very different (even affecting ability to cross legs). Rather than condemn curves, people really need to look at who runs fashion to understand the unhealthy imagery. It's no accident top female models often look like teen boys .
Last edited by Isoverity : 18-07-2011 at 04:51 AM.
It really must be the shops I go in to. It doesn't really surprise me that RI do a six though. I don't like anything from there though, and even if I did I don't think I could afford it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoverity
Curves and womanhood are inseparable. Men's and women's hips are very different (even affecting ability to cross legs). Rather than condemn curves, people really need to look at who runs fashion to understand the unhealthy imagery. It's no accident top female models often look like teen boys .
I have to disagree. Whilst the stereotypical silhouette of a woman is the hourglass figure, we all know that not every woman has that body shape. And for the media to continue the idea that it is the 'perfect' shape, whilst condemning women for having poor body confidence is nothing short of hypocritical. No one is condemning curves, I am condemning the attitude that you need to have curves to be a woman.
Not all women have curves, don't be silly, there are women out there who have petite hips and large chests, larger hips and no breasts, narrow hips and sticky out bums and small chests. A lot of women have small bums and feel unhappy with that because the media say's a 'real' woman is hourglass. No, we are ALL shapes and sizes under the sun.
Some people are very narrow hipped, but does that make them less of a woman, no! And I vehemently reject the idea of an hourglass figure being more attractive as well. Women tend to have larger hips than men, but that doesn't mean 'women' are curvy creatures, any more than it means 'men' are tall muscular sticks!
Intrinsically, biologically, women are more curvy than men. It doesn't mean that women who don't look like Christina Hendricks aren't women, but there's a biological tendency towards curvier people. Plus, the "Women can be all shapes and sizes" always reminds me of
Outnumbered - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIGqyDc4rHA#t=00m56s
Howevs, it's stating the obvious to say that 'It's no accident top female models often look like teen boys' - ofc. not. Shops want models that show off the clothes, and curves detract from the clothing. It's pretty basic stuff.
I think there just needs to be an understanding all-round, really. Not going by weight and BMI, but going by health and appearance would be good. I don't know what point I'm trying to make here. :P
Last edited by Dreaming. : 19-07-2011 at 08:59 PM.
