The editor of one of the world's most influential fashion magazines has lashed out at haute couture companies for forcing the use of super-skinny models.
In an unprecedented move, veteran Vogue UK editor Alexandra Shulman sent a letter toluxury fashion firms complaining about the clothes sent for models to use in photo shoots in her magazine.
The Times has now published parts of the lambasting letter, which was not intended for publication, from Ms Shulman about so-called size-zero models.
"During the time I have been at Vogue the sample sizes that models are required to wear have become substantially smaller," she wrote in the missive.
As a result, the editor accused designers of making her hire models with "jutting bones and no breasts or hips".
She added: "Nowadays, I often ask the photographers to retouch to make the models appear larger.
"I am finding that the feedback from my readers and the general feeling in the UK is that people really don't want to see such thin girls either in editorial or advertising."
Ms Shulman told the newspaper: "I don't want to be too specific about it, but it was very recently. I found myself saying to the photographers, 'Can you not make them look too thin?"'
Art staff have resorted to using software programmes to smooth away protruding features and flesh out the models to make them appear more palatable.
Ironically, the highly respected fashion editor also revealed that some cover images only show faces - not the clothes - because readers are "uncomfortable".
The Vogue action comes after the fashion world has been accused repeatedly of pressuring young girls and women into unhealthy dietary lifestyles to maintain slim figures.
According to the paper, although Ms Shulman does not believe all firms are to blame the letter was sent to the world's major designers including Stella McCartney, Alexander McQueen, John Galliano and Donatella Versace.
Ms Versace's own daughter has battled with an eating disorder for several years.
Emma Healey, director of operations of Beat, a UK charity which supports people affected by eating disorders, applauded the move by the magazine.
Ms Healey said: "This is very welcome. The whole controversy over size-zero models has been a wake up call.
"British fashion is leading the way on this, and it is very encouraging to see Vogue, which is the fashion magazine, taking a stance like this."
Obviously it's great that someone in the fashion industry is taking a stand on this.
The only thing that bothers me though is that in the whole "size-zero" issue, it seems like there's always an underlying assumption that a wearing a certain size or having a certain BMI is always unhealthy or is always dangerous. It's not. My sister and I both actually do wear a [size removed] most of the time, and can almost never get away with bigger than a [size removed], and while neither of us is tall enough to be a model at that level anyway, we'd actually in some instances even be banned from modeling for being too thin even though we're both just naturally small. My eating habits are debatable, but I've never really tried very hard to lose weight and I'm definitely no where close to meeting clinical criteria for anorexia, and my sister eats a ridiculous amount and hasn't been able to gain weight when she's tried, and definitely does have breasts even (I barely do, but that runs in the family) and just has really tiny bones (which don't protrude at all since they're in proportion to the rest of her body, which is part of why she looks healthy even though she's tiny). But like there was something I read about with some fashion show, I think it was in Spain, that actually set a minimum BMI for models, which I wouldn't have met by quite a bit (I'd have had to gain like [weight removed]), and since my sister and I are pretty much exactly the same size (I'm about a quarter of an inch taller, and last we checked she weight about 2 pounds more than me), I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have either, even though we actually are both at a healthy weigh for our bodies. Even though honestly, I think that if my sister did somehow gain enough weight to not be considered underweight according to her BMI, and to wear like [size removed] or so, she'd probably look like she'd do well to lose some weight even though by any standardized measure she'd be barely even "normal" weight, because it's just not her natural size and she'd look too heavy for her frame. But then there are also people like my grandma, who I'd have to say actually does have an eating disorder, who's not underweight by medical standards, and wears like a [size removed], which isn't controversial at all, but she still looks too thin for her bone structure, and my mom and sister and I all agree that she'd look better a bit heavier than she is.
I guess that while it's good that they're trying to do something about the pressure for models to be so thin, it just bothers me that it still feels like trying to decide on an ideal clothing size and BMI for everyone rather than emphasizing that people look best at whatever size is right for their body, and the problem is that people feel pressure to fit into a clothing size that's not right for them. Like in high school my sister was teased some for being so thin, and felt really bad about it for a while, and if she'd been also getting the [size removed] are too thin (let alone a [size removed] like she wore then), it definitely wouldn't have helped her feel better about herself. I think that ideally we should see models of all different sizes, and there's no reason why that can't include people who do wear a size 0 as long as that's their natural size. The problem isn't models wearing a size 0, it's models being expected to wear a size 0 when it's not their natural size, and to me that's an important distinction.
Last edited by Bitter_Angel : 14-06-2009 at 01:36 PM.
Reason: removing numbers. please do not post weights and sizes in line with the ED rules
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
I'm probably far more sensitive to these issues than most (I suffer from anorexia nervosa), but even on a non-ED related level it bothers me; not just the twisted preference the fashion industry has for super-skinny models, but the attention the media piles onto them too. No matter how much we're told that being emaciated is horrendously unhealthy, fashion magazines and celebrity magazines glorify it relentlessly.
Not only that, but there are also magazines which blatantly say that the emaciated, unhealthy-size-zero is desirable, and should be strived for.
I once saw two celebrity magazines on a rack side by side, both with Angelina Jolie on the cover. One said something along the lines of "Angie not eating, blah blah blah" and generally saying that she's losing weight and in very poor health. The other said "Angie's diet secrets!!!"
I think it's absolutely awesome that somebody is standing up and voicing out about this, especially somebody as influential as her.
However - I think the real issue isn't models in magazines who wear clothes that really, only a tiny tiny minority will be able to afford, let alone wear. I think that a much bigger problem is the influence of having smaller people in films/on tv, in situations where people can relate to them, and that are - to an extent - 'real' characters.
Models are, in some ways, supposed to be unrealistic. I do absolutely agree that the vast majority of models are now too slim - but models aren't meant to be real-life. In the same way as on catwalks; models are almost supposed to be 'hangers'.
But, in television and film, in situations where people will recognise characters, they relate to them, they find familiarities between themselves and the characters - and a lot of these characters are very slim. Hmm.
But yes, this is a wonderful step forward, and absolute kudos to her.
Last edited by Dreaming. : 14-06-2009 at 06:03 PM.
But, in television and film, in situations where people will recognise characters, they relate to them, they find familiarities between themselves and the characters - and a lot of these characters are very slim. Hmm.
i think this is very true. I alwasy find people who i can relate to more triggering than models. and relaly skinny peopel i knwo in real life more triggerign than those on TV etc.
"I would be almighty in my own world of art, even if I had to paint my pictures with my wet tongue on the dusty floor of my cell." -Picasso
"No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war." - Picasso
'I have scars becuase I have a past; but they, like my past, do not define my future'
i think this is very true. I alwasy find people who i can relate to more triggering than models. and relaly skinny peopel i knwo in real life more triggerign than those on TV etc.
That. Real life can be hell for me some days.
Although I am so glad someone is taking a stand against the unhealthy image that's hailed as fantastic. It would be nice to see a slightly bigger range of models out there and although I think that is is much easier done in catalogues than on the catwalk (it's easier to order clothes in different sizes than to make them from scratch) I think healthier models on the catwalk would be nice too.
I'm not saying no size zero, I have a few friends who are healthy in their eating but absolutley freaking tiny, like size zero tiny, so I know it's not always unhealthy. But those girls who look ill, with hair falling out and every bone jutting out, they need help.
It's funny, bar a couple of people in the media (film, tv.) & I don't find many to be all that triggering. They're slim, yes, but not 'dangerously' so. I get triggered more walking out & about on the streets.
It isn't even the negative role model thing that bothers me, it's the fact that illnesses are being encouraged or exploited. It's that people seem to find it perfectly acceptable for certain models to continue to work. In a couple of years their modelling careers will be over, but they may have to live with health problems for the rest of their lives. You've got a real problem when you've got to photoshop someone to appear bigger (naturally slim models shouldn't have problems with bones..).
I'm not asking for the industry to start wheeling in cartloads of size 16s, just keep it safe.
Best news I've seen today. Of course now I have to go to school and compare myself with everyone there, but any progress is good. I feel more hatred towards myself when with real people than when seeing superskinny models though.
this is my magical medicine cabinet. Left to right they contain: courage, hope, calmness, and strength.
The magical part: They NEVER run out, so borrow some any time you want.
ER ^^^ What? A size 4 is abnormal no matter how you look at it! That's disgusting. To my knowledge there isn't even a size 4! Size 6 is the lowest size i have *ever* seen and even i think that is wrong unless you're midget. o_0
Places like Asda do a size 4, I think - although it's a fairly generous size 4, from what I can remember about Asda sizing!
And as for it being healthy, one of my friends from school is completely and utterly healthy, she eats like a horse and cycles around - but doesn't do any more exercise really than that - and she often finds size 6 to be too big. She's perfectly healthy, medically practically perfect - she's just naturally that tiny. She's 5ft4, too.
It's not common, but it's not necessarily abnormal, and certainly not - on her at least - 'disgusting'.
Last edited by Dreaming. : 19-06-2009 at 12:56 PM.
ER ^^^ What? A size 4 is abnormal no matter how you look at it! That's disgusting. To my knowledge there isn't even a size 4! Size 6 is the lowest size i have *ever* seen and even i think that is wrong unless you're midget. o_0
Just FYI, a UK size 4 is the same as a US size 0.
Some people naturally are that small, and calling it "disgusting" and "abnormal" seems a bit rude. For that matter, it seems rather inappropriate to apply that description to people who are that small because of an eating disorder, or any medical condition. Surely you wouldn't tell a cancer patient who's lost weight during chemotherapy that their size is "disgusting" and "abnormal," so why is it okay to say that to people who may be severely underweight because of an eating disorder, or who may be at a healthy weight and just very small? And personally I found that comment a bit hurtful considering that I often find that a US size 2 (UK 6) is too big, even though I'm average height.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
i agree, i have one friend who always finds size 6 too big and therefore shops at places like top shop etc who do size 4's. she eats very well (more than me) and is the same height as me too. She just has a very small frame. She's not particularly bony or anything either.
I dont think anyone should be discriminated against because of their weight whether it is high or low.
I think the key word is healthy. You can be any size and be healthy.
I had friends in high school and I have friends now that are that small and not ill or anything. Sure, perhaps some of them could do with a bit more weight on their frame, but depending on the frame and general build, it can come across as different. If I was that size, it wouldn't look good on me. The lowest I should ever go ought to be a US size 4, which is what I thought this was about when I read this.
It depends a lot on the build and metabolism of the individual person though.
![[Purple_Rain]'s Avatar](image.php?s=b2fa005fd420838c924d448a735aa5ac&u=153&dateline=1251793099)
