Something serious today: the subject is anorexia.
If you read this article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/fashion/shows/07DIARY.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
There is a quote from Kelly Cutrone, founder of People's Revolution, saying that anorexia is consumer-driven: "I personally think that it’s the consumer that’s doing this, and fashion is just responding".
I TOTALLY DISAGREE.
Have you ever walked into a store, seen this great pair of jeans, and look through the sizes and find that a 31 is the only size that fits you? And that the store only keeps up to a size 32?
You don't want to pick out a more comfortable size 32, because that would mean that you are "the whale who bought the largest size in the store". No. You pick up the 31 and buy them - but you resolve to get down to a 25, so that you can walk in, pick up the smallest size, and make everyone wish they were as thin as you.
If the designers made larger sizes in general (and called them 'size 25'), then people would feel better about themselves - and not decide to starve themselves in order to fit into smaller sizes.
I don't know if you've ever walked into Bennetton and felt that little shock when the sales assistant says "oh it's a size 42". At the store I go to she always quickly reassures me "but it's Italian sizing!". Nevertheless - if people would just call a size 38 a, well, a size 38, then we wouldn't have this problem of self-esteem suddenly plummetting down.
Marc Jacobs, I think it was, started making sizes in negative numbers. Yes. As is -2, -3, -4! For goodness sake! You give us size 2, we say ok, we can do it. Maybe. Then you give us size 0. We say sh*t. Then you give us double 0 - and we say OK, FINE! We'll slim down to a size 2 - after all, there are double 0's out there.
Now you stick a -4 in there, and all the double-0 girls are gonna feel fat, because there is a stick-insect out there who is a size -4.
Something I really like, but I was quite surprised at my own reaction:
If you read this article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/fashion/shows/07DIARY.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
There is a quote from Kelly Cutrone, founder of People's Revolution, saying that anorexia is consumer-driven: "I personally think that it’s the consumer that’s doing this, and fashion is just responding".
I TOTALLY DISAGREE.
Have you ever walked into a store, seen this great pair of jeans, and look through the sizes and find that a 31 is the only size that fits you? And that the store only keeps up to a size 32?
You don't want to pick out a more comfortable size 32, because that would mean that you are "the whale who bought the largest size in the store". No. You pick up the 31 and buy them - but you resolve to get down to a 25, so that you can walk in, pick up the smallest size, and make everyone wish they were as thin as you.
If the designers made larger sizes in general (and called them 'size 25'), then people would feel better about themselves - and not decide to starve themselves in order to fit into smaller sizes.
I don't know if you've ever walked into Bennetton and felt that little shock when the sales assistant says "oh it's a size 42". At the store I go to she always quickly reassures me "but it's Italian sizing!". Nevertheless - if people would just call a size 38 a, well, a size 38, then we wouldn't have this problem of self-esteem suddenly plummetting down.
Marc Jacobs, I think it was, started making sizes in negative numbers. Yes. As is -2, -3, -4! For goodness sake! You give us size 2, we say ok, we can do it. Maybe. Then you give us size 0. We say sh*t. Then you give us double 0 - and we say OK, FINE! We'll slim down to a size 2 - after all, there are double 0's out there.
Now you stick a -4 in there, and all the double-0 girls are gonna feel fat, because there is a stick-insect out there who is a size -4.
Something I really like, but I was quite surprised at my own reaction:
I admit, though I am embarassed to say, that I was quite surprised at how Gemma Ward (my favorite model ever!) looked here - I thought her to be quite bloated.
But THEN I realized it wasn't her weight that was bothering me - it was the fact that I am seeing a NORMAL sized person on the runway! She looks hot! Those are my legs! Therefore I can achieve this look - without starving myself!Doesn't she look great!? I really think we should see more of this on the runway, and not the following:
[though I admit above she looks gorgeous - but starting to look a little waiflike]
[again, here she still looks great, I love her face, but now definitely too skinny]
[Don't you think her legs looked better in the first series of pics? I don't believe she could pull off those Chanel micro shorts with these legs - just too skinny. The shorts would fall off]
Now this, above, is not a picture of Gemma Ward, but of Lily Cole. Her legs look awful, no real woman should ever want to have legs like that. The look isn't hot people.I just feel SO sorry for these people. I understand that the fashion world needs thin models, because, let's face it, you're gonna want to buy an oufit from someone on whom the clothes look flattering rather than from someone on whom the outfit showcases bulges and folds.
But the thing is, I don't think that that is the real reason - I think the fashion world just loves extremes, and wants their models to be more like hangers than anything else.
But I want to ask them, how selfish are you that because you want to showcase your designs that you are willing to spoil millions of generations of people through anorexia. People are not going to stop buying your designs, even if you do have size 4-6 people on runways! In fact, people want them so bad they are willing to die for them every day. Litterally.
No comments:
Post a Comment