Bulletin from Planet Earth . . .
Skinny women are for men who like boys.
Real women have curves, real men have hair.
End of message, hear and obey.
Ralph Lauren has apologized for Photoshopping the pelvis of a fashion model down to inhuman proportions. Yesterday, we told you the tale of a recent Ralph Lauren magazine advert that takes the fashion world's taste for emaciated bodies to new extremes: Ralph Lauren Photoshop Disaster Ralph Lauren Photoshoppery After its …
Bulletin from Planet Earth . . .
Skinny women are for men who like boys.
Real women have curves, real men have hair.
End of message, hear and obey.
"We've learned that we're responsible"??? That is neither a blatant lie, nor an acceptance of full responsibility - it's the kind of statement you'd expect from a teenager who hasn't yet developed the maturity to hold his hands up and say, 'sorry'.
It's implicitly trying to get us to believe that not one person at RL knew about this, whilst at the same time trying to admit responsibility in a dilution of such proportions that it somehow places less blame on the person in charge by saying, "actually yes, it was I and these other 2,000 employees that did this".
It's as sickening as the image. Weasly and worryingly deceptive.
The shaving of bits (i.e. the Brazilian) is more of a hygene thing than a paedophillia thing. It prevents things like lice, and helps keep the area clean of smegma and other such bodily secretions.
Paris, because we've all seen her brazilian.....
Gay. Men. Are. Not. Paedophiles.
Please go peddle your hatred elsewhere.
I recently watched the series Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (the Glenn Larson 1979 series). I hadn't seen it since I was a teenager (30 years ago) and what really hit me between the eyes is how our conept of beauty and fashion has changed in that time. Most of the girls in the show were clad in either miniskirts or body-hugging outfits, and all of them revealed nice sturdy legs, wide hips, full figures, and healthy breasts. They looked hot then, and to me they look hot now.
But what a difference from looking at the stick-figures we see now, not just on catwalks but even in today's TV shows. Like others here, I'm not interested in chicks that look like the contents of a broom cupboard. I want to see a return to the girls of Buck Rogers (and Logan's Run - another show that used healthy, hearty-looking women and wasn't ashamed to show them off).
To AC "It's not about you": How the hell do you know what sells better, when the ONLY thing you fashionistas have plugged for the last TWO FUCKING DECADES is androgynous broomsticks and nothing but? Take a bloody risk once in your bean-counting lives - try presenting a show with women who have real curves, just once. You may be surprised by the uptake!
Paris because she's the only woman in the Reg icon list, and she's a fucking broomstick.
but I bet the department head is now in ine for a HUGE bonus for getting the company talked about more ("any advertising is good advertising - especially if it's free" I think that's they're motto).
To be honest the department head (and the photoshoppers) should be taken out and shot for crimes against the human body. As I recall even soldiers have a getout clause that they can use when they are ordered to do something that they believe is morally wrong to prevent them having to carry out orders that are 'flawed' (those in military service please correct me if I'm wrong) - why aren't the photoshoppers using the same sort of clause (or are they all just as sick as the marketeers they are working for?)
Why don't the marketeers look at the 'sex sirens' of the screen and stage for inspiration? (Marylin Monroe, Sophia Lauren, Charlotte Church et all) Real Men want Real Women, anything else is paedophillia - and we should hang the ad-men as such.
Even Paris has SOME curves about her....
As far as most men (Men not boys mind you) are concerned curves are what we want....
So why do they persist with this crap
...going forward...and all....
Any designer -- homo, hetero, pan, all of the above, none of the above, whatever -- is going to create what she/he/ze thinks will sell. If enough people clamor for clothes for a Marilyn (Monroe)-esque figure, the fashion world will respond. If people clamor for clothes for a Marilyn (Manson)-esque figure, we have seen the fashion world's ability to supply the demand. When people (some of the male models are also scarily malnourished) stop buying this shite (the clothes specifically, the whole "thin is in" message in general), stand proud in their own bodies, and only support brands that respect all sizes, the fashion houses will respond or risk losing sales.
How slippery - "We have learned that we are responsible"
That's like saying "You know that ad with the stick thin mardy girl we did? Well, we did that." Surely if they'd thought they weren't responsible, they wouldn't have bothered with their arsey takedown.
I think not!
I've had to look through adverts, and help with layout. What proper, ETHICAL, companies use photoshop for is the following:
Cropping to fit
Assembling an image of a model against a different background
Obvious Zit removal / removing dust spots
Making sure the colour balance is correct
And thats it.
I remember when the Dove real women ads came out (Normal sized lasses in underwear).
Judy in the street loved it. Fashionista in the ad industry hated it. Guess who Dove listened to
Please allow me in turn to question your assertion that gay women "seem to be man-haters for the most part". I mean, I can't speak for them, but I don't think you can either.
The really sad thing is that many women are brain-washed to think that we (men) perfer these pathetic stick insects that pass for fashion models. I've actualy had arguments with women because I've stated that most guys I know don't want really skinny women and the usual response is to be met with disbelief ... at which point I just give up.
I hate the stupid assertion from those in the fasion industry that it's just about selling clothes and that the constand bomdarding of fashion industry images does NOT influence how women perceive themselves. This is ridiculous crap.
The fashion industry has a profound influence on people and there needs to be some more basic regulation.
I get a bit tired of men trying to outcompete each other with the 'I like curvy women' declarations. No shit, well, that's great, but we're all individuals and people like different things. Personally I prefer the athletic figure (triathletes in particular) and I completely reject the idea that this means that I secretly like boys.
Some catwalk models may well look 'too bony' (whatever that means) in swimsuits or lingerie, but again, no shit, they're (generally) paid megabucks because they look good *in* clothes, not out of them. As for the earlier comment that all catalogs feature stick insects as models, bollocks, I have the Next 2009 Spring/Summer catalog right here and the models (particularly in the lingerie section) are not stick insects by any stretch of the imagination.
Again, as for porn stars shaving etc, this is not to make them look pre-pubescent or 'like boys', it's so that you can actually see their genitalia - look up the definition of 'pornography' if you still need a clue. Check out the hideously inflated and unnatural-looking breasts on those shaven porn stars and see how that squares with the 'all men are secretly paedos' meme.
The earlier 'sex therapist' comment made the right point - look at the covers of the magazines in your local newsagent. The ones aimed at women have slim models, the ones aimed at men have curvy models. That tells you all you need to know - despite any protestations to the contrary, *most* women like images of slim women (for whatever reason), *most* men like images of curvy women (for largely obvious reasons).
As for that Dawn Porter prog where she nearly killed herself trying to diet down to size zero - no shit, again - if you were born sturdy and try to diet down to 6 stone you're going to make yourself ill - it doesn't follow that all, or even some, catwalk models are deliberately endangering their health to stay slim.
I would have thought that the women posting here would have been apoplectic at the suggestion that slim or flat-chested women were somehow less feminine or less attractive... stand up for your sisters, curvy girls! And look up some photos of Hedy Lamarr, Bette Davis and Lauren Bacall in their prime to see exactly how much the image of a desirable female has changed in the last fifty years.
Anyway, I'll try to calm down now...
"The shaving of bits (i.e. the Brazilian) is more of a hygene thing than a paedophillia thing. It prevents things like lice, and helps keep the area clean of smegma and other such bodily secretions."
So it's because the person in question feels they stand a good chance of catching pubic lice and can feel that they are clean, fresh and clear of bodily secretions (their own or other peoples?) with just a change of pants (underwear in the US) that they shave off all pubic hair? I think I'll go for the hairy one next time they probably have a more realistic sense of proper hygiene. Anyway it's not paedophilia it's an over reaction to the fear of getting (or appearing to get) old. Why the fuck should it be considered wrong to ask a lady's age? Why is it considered a complement to say 'ooh, you don't look a day over x'? And what for christ's sake is the point of potions that 'Defy the seven sign signs of aging' (it makes me think of king Cnut 'defying' the tide). It perpetuates the myth that youth = attractiveness in order sell stuff that doesn't do anything. I'm in my forties and am finding that women in their forties are fun to be with and confident enough to talk openly about they want and what I want.
Back to the point though. I would like to see of evidence to back up the 'The public gets what the public wants' theory that a lot of fashion industry apologists at trotting out. What would be the point of lifestyle advertising if that were true.
I liked the suggestion on Mark Thomas's 'Peoples Manifesto' show that a law should be passed that advertisements could show only an untouched picture of the product and 3 verifiable facts about the product.
...but Ralph Lauren isn't selling to us, are they? In fact, I doubt those images even appear in magazines that most men are likely to even glance at, let alone pick up and buy.
Gents, we have to take care not to fall into the idea that fashion, makeup, sexy underwear, perfume or anything of that ilk is designed in order to make women sexier for men's pleasure, or even to attract men; It isn't, apparently. As a notable psychologist/feminist recently explained to me it's about 'bragging rights' between women themselves. It's the same game of brinksmanship that men play with their cars, their golf handicap, or how many pints they can drink. It's all about having a stronger 'male' image.
A shorter skirt isn't a woman dressing 'provocatively' to attract a 'partner'; it's about establishing their 'self image as a woman'.
Now, I coughed a lot when this was explained to me, but I will leave you all to make up your own minds. I think, however, that I'm safe in saying that Ralph Lauren doesn't give two hoots what the average heterosexual male thinks, however, and isn't going to change plans simply because we all like more curvy lasses!
My point was that if one takes a woman and make her deliberately look unlike a woman - more andro/masculine in figure - for the deliberate presentation to the public then its reasonable to suppose that one doesn't know what's good about the female figure. After all, it's just been carefully eliminated. The end result does not look female. Therefore...
As for gay women, your experiences are clearly totally different from mine. Every last one, in fact.
Comparison with Playboy, who are putting a woman with curves on their cover - Marge Simpson.
Sad day when cartoon pronography is more natural than fashion.
but the level of objectification going on in this comments thread is verging on the offensive.
Diversity enriches us, and stating "women should be curvy" doesn't help.. least of all those who are thin as a result NOT of eating disorders or malnutrition, but instead through speedy metabolisms, or metabolic disorders, or serious illness, or any one of the many other possible reasons for being low weight. Let's not cast scorn upon them, or tell them that their body shape is not acceptable.. It's just as bad as telling those with heavier bodies that their shape is unacceptable. "Yeah - she's got no tits so she must be mingin, innit" is the implication of a lot of the posts on this thread. Sickening.
While having personal preferences is fine, and healthy - otherwise how would you select a partner you find sexually attractive? - saying that anything that falls outside the bounds of this is unattractive is ludicrous. It's an entirely subjective judgement.
And I'd like to disavow the implications down the thread that somehow men are unified in this "WE WANT CURVES, AND WE WANT 'EM NOW!" attitude - I for one can take 'em or leave 'em. Were I single, I'd not be looking for a body shape - I'd be looking for someone who could enrich my life, and for whom I can do the same. Someone who shares my loves, and with whom I can better enjoy my short life than I could without. All this talk of curves is frankly pathetic - it's like being in a schoolyard full of 14 year old boys.
And as for the women supporting these views, I'm aghast. Feminism takes another step back... "F%ck the sisterhood! Curvy girlz only!"
"It's all a rich tapestry"
I have that kind of figure which makes me think I was born in the wrong century - classic hourglass with about a size 8 waist over size 12 hips, approximately (at least, until they change the 'standard' measurements again to make previously size 14 woman fit into a size 10-12), with the added complication of a 32" inside leg.
Needless to say, under the current fashion regime I find clothes hunting an absolute nightmare, as do other friends who have fashion-abnormal body features such as hips, bum cheeks or reasonably sized breasts.
And it's getting worse - ten or so yeas ago I had no problem getting jeans and some form of trousers and fitted skirts, and owned at least one dress. Now I mainly have to stick to a-line skirts, a few pairs of trousers where the waist still fits well enought to allow me to wear them with a belt without looking like a sack tied round the middle with string, and the only dresses I own are two custom fitted bridesmaid dresses. I bought my first pair of jeans in a long time earlier this year, which actually fit - unlike all other pairs I tried over the last few years, which (like most of the 'fitted' skirts and trousers I've tried recently) either fitted the waist but wouldn't do up round the hips, or fitted the hips but gaped open about four inches at the back.
So, fashionistas, take note - I would gladly be spending more money on clothes - if only you'd take off your skinny-vision goggles and design something for a non straight-up-and-down body type! Oh, and I'll also carry on ignoring your overpriced glam-rags until you restrict your photoshopping to the excellent suggestions of SirTainleyBarking, and/or introduce Mycho's rating system (excellent ideas!).
"Unlike lesbians, who seem to be man haters for the most part, gay men don't hate women."
I'll get your coat.
This seems to be a common problem, but I really find it hard to believe that the fashion / clothing industry is deliberately promoting and catering for some mythical average body shape which doesn't exist at the expense of their own profits. Is it not possible that you're just an unusual size and shape?
I'm slightly above average height (only slightly - 6'0") and generally struggle to fit into seats on airliners and buses, but I fully understand why and don't really blame the manufacturers for their decisions.
Seriously, diversity in the fashion image really ? How come the vast majority of images are of unnaturally skinning models?
And when an actual woman (Jesthar) points out one of the problems with the obession with "size zero" is that she can't find clothes to fit her an apologist for the fashion industry responds "Is it not possible that you're just an unusual size and shape" - WTF ? Putting your insult to her aside, do you have any idea how many women complain about not being able to find clothes that fit them ?
I find this argument that they are just catering to the market extremely doubtful. All sorts of industries have got themselves into a "vicious feedback loop" where they convince themselves that they, and not the consumer, knows best. This persist until the consumer revolts - the problem is though that for the comsumer to revolt there has to be a credible alternative.
Steve Swan (above) makes a good point that women's fashion is not aimed at men but the real question is who determines what today's fashion is? It seems to be an unrepresentitive elite who set unhealty standards. I suspect they operate in a feedback loop where they try to out-do each other trying to reach some internal industry ideal. And what the women in the street needs actually does not matter that much because she (the woman in the street) will want what the fashion industry creates - I mean its not like there's much choice. For any that doubt this - try to go shopping for something that isn't this year's style.
I suspect it's more accurate to say i'm not a 'fashionable' size and shape - well, not in this day and age, had I been born during the days of hourglass coursets I'd have done just fine! "Childbearing hips" I believe they used to call my type of build ;)
And I do fully appreciate that mass production imposes it's own limitatiions (I'm tall for a girl, and my brother is 6'3"), but you kind of answered your own question when you said it seems to be a common problem. I don't expect the whole of the fashion industry to be geared to my tastes and body shape, but it would be nice for it to be acknowledged rather more than it is!
After all, I can't be the only narrow waisted wide hipped girl out there who diesn't fancy the idea of low slung hipsters/skirts as the solution to their clothing problems... ;)
I have been curvy, semi-curvy, and thin. Regardless of where I am in the overall scheme of things, I find the PShopping of pics and the use of super thing models to be dirty-pool. 0 isn't a size, it's the absence of size.
I will say, I love seeing the comments from you gents stating that you love curves. Where were you when I had them? I was ever so invisible. I am thinner now (size 6, which by industry standards would make me a plus-size model, btw), but by no means skinny. My face and hair look the same and my personality is exactly as it has always been. Hmmmm, what oh what could be the difference?
Ralph Lauren and his creepy company may not be selling to men, that is true. We may be brainwashed into feeling that 'Thin is in'. But, we also know that when push comes to shove, men may love curves, but they are not always attracted to them when they are looking.
We love you, anyway, though! Smiley, because I am not that far off the mark!
I don't hate men. Like most lesbians, the only difference between me and straight women is that I fancy other women and just don't want to have sex with blokes. We're not a bloody hivemind, we just don't like the cock.
What I <i>do</i> hate is uppity queens who feel they can speak for an entire class of people. Ever thought that the common denominator in those "Lesbians who hate men" experiences of yours might be YOU?
Love the skin you're in. Ignore the opinion of others. After all, it's the only body you've got!
I might add that a healthy diet & exercise program is a good idea from a health perspective, but that'd be preaching.
All else is pointless prattle. We're all different, no two people look exactly the same. Not even twins. I dated identical twins in college (hush, children, not simultaneously!), and I could tell them apart at a distance. When you think about it, this is a good thing ... if we all looked the same, think about how boring the world would be!
Same for both guys and gals, of course.
Viv l'difference, and to hell with the fashion industry!
Note to Jesthar: Tailors aren't very expensive. My Wife has a similar body shape to what you describe, and probably spends a total of $300/yr getting clothes altered. Try it, you'll like it! :-)
"When a woman asks if X "makes me look fat" the correct answer is, "no, only Ralph Lauren makes you look fat." "
And Karl Lagerfeld; read what he has to say about this:
"Iconic fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld has defended the use of ultra-thin models on the runway, telling a German news magazine that "no one wants to see curvy women." "
I do have a friend who can alter clothes, might try learning myself too! The main problem is it's usually the tricky fiddly areas (like waistbands) which need altering, not really a beginner project and I can't afford to wreck too much stuff! :) Still, have to start somewhere :)
Incidentally, I think "Viv l'difference, and to hell with the fashion industry!" might find it's way into a few online signatures of mine - if there are no objections, that is! ;)
"And a magazine gets criticised for not 'touching up' Sarah Palin."
I know she's a crazy Republitard, but I would DEFINATELY 'touch-up' Sarah Palin!! *snigger*
Don't worry, I'm on my way to the coat rack......
Jesthar: Correct. Trouser altering is not a DIY project. My wife tried in the years before I met her, usually reducing herself to tears (or so she says ... I find it hard to believe, she's not prone to that kind of thing). I suggested having a pro do it, and she hasn't looked back. Enjoy your new wardrobe! :-) Use the phrase all you like.
Jay: Don't lust after the mentally ill. They already have enough on their plate.
That's really taking responsibility... right.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017