fair is fair and so lets see more of her … and Chanel made a mistake …
on 08/23/2010 at 12:53 PM
She’s soft enough for me. Keep me warm when it’s cold outside. Gimme shade when the sun is too hot. What a hunk o woman!
In the article she slammed a photographer for airbrushing a photo - seems to me Largerfeld appears to have done the same thing - as that face and neck look awfully skinny compared to the other picture.
Won’t get into how damn stupid it is to push size 0 (size 4 in UK) - when the average size (worldwide) is size 10. And oh, btw - in real life - it is almost impossible to find size 0 in any stores (my younger daughter is a size 0, it is one of the reasons she shops White House/Black Market - as they consistently have it on the racks). But women’s fashion has never been about looking beautiful - it is just another way to control women.
And objectify them.
And demean them.
And to make money off their bodies.
And to make the majority of women feel bad about how they look.
Wardmom, some of these models make huge sums of money and continue to do so for years.
So they too are making the best of their looks while they can. I don’t quite understand how controlling women fits in. Based on things I see and read here if that’s true, it appears women themselves are working hand in hand with male designers or whoever else it is that’s doing the controlling.Can a free thinking female be controlled? I’m referring to fashion industry. Somebody is buying the image or the merchandise or whatever it is that’s for sale. ??
Although I must admit there are times I do wonder about female sanity when I see how the many celebs dress themselves. Or undress as the case might be. I don’t personally care for the stick thin, angry looking (maybe they’re hungry?) models I see in magazines.I also think ocm has a valid point re. women wanting to look like air brushed models. How many average ppl can meet a standard like that? In fact, it’s a false standard that only serves advertising and the products sold. But wow, those models are being paid well at the same time. And he’s right again about men yearning. As it turns out, yearning for something that doesn’t exist in real life. But I don’t see how it demeans women. Sure doesn’t demean the ones who are successful or choose that profession.
Any person male or female who is blessed with unusual good looks is bound to be “objectified” to some degree. And many seem to welcome it or at least accept it as part of their persona.
Not so sure about the “plus size” for this woman. In the St. Tropez photo at your link, in street clothes she doesn’t appear at all overweight, not even full figured. Actually, she looks healthy/slender, ie completely normal.
Designers are all gay sadists anyway. I have no idea why real women don’t take over the women’s wear industry. Seems like a huge DUH to me. You’d see a lot curvier models, and happier models too, if hetero men were in charge.
Develop a new sizing schema that takes 5-6 measurements into account. Bust, hip/stomach, torso length, neck size, arm length, upper arm circumference. Why not? Men’s pants and shirts already use 2. This “size 12” thing is meaningless, as are “petite”, “junior”, “women’s” etc categories ... and the clothing makers don’t pay much attention to it anyway. One polymetric is the better approach. Yet women put up with it. A company that made men’s shirts would be out of business in a week if their 17/34 was actually an 18.5/32. There are no excuses in this day and age that any women can’t buy clothes online with a 99% assurance that they will fit properly on delivery.
OCM ... right you are on the Asian thing. Measures are different. Not easy buying online but I’ve found even in stores where the pants for example are made in Asian countries, they seem somewhat skimpy or tight. in other cases baggy and an inch to two inches too big. weird.
You two only strengthen my argument for a universal polymetric. Make it metric from the get-go, since 1cm < 1/2 inch, which would allow for a finer gradation - in other words, a better fit.
What’s your size? “um, I wear a 73-55-44-27-38-22” ... and the piece is made to order on the spot. “Standard” sizes could encompass a 5cm or 10cm range for off the rack stuff, but few would bother with that. By a 5 part polymetric would allow very close custom sizing, and it would just about force the clothing industry to come back to the USA. The downside of that would be that whatever you ordered would be yours. No returns unless you can prove a production error. So get yourself measured properly. The upside is that an adjustable clothes dummy would be straightforward to make, and for a small amount of cash you could have a dressmaker pin up a “tester” to prove the fit ahead of time.
Even better, the clothing store would carry mostly only bolts of material, with perhaps one or two examples of each design on a rack. Enter your numbers into the computer, and it digitally models your figure, at which point you just sit down at the console and click through hundreds or thousands of outfits, all shown in HD on an animated digital mannequin that matches your measurements. Mix ‘n match, “try it on”, then have the model walk, run, bend, squat, sit, lean over etc to show how the material moves, hangs, drapes, etc.
The technology already exists. Clothing patterns are already digital, as is the fabric layout diagram, even for complex patterns and weaves. Bang bang bang, and the robot cuts it out and stitches it up for you right on the spot. Or maybe a human does the stitching. The cost would be pretty much the same too, since there is no shipping, and no storage overhead.
Heck, a laser scanner on a turntable could scan you for size every time you went to the shop.
Yeah, I remember that scene from The Sleeper too, but technology has come lightyears since then.
Good for her that she’s modelling and enjoying it! I hope she’s wildly popular and successful in what she does.
As to the rest of the fashion industry, with their anorexic skeletons that they hang clothes off of, well, I’ll just let Mr. Cash expound on that…
Lets see - control - like jockeys - it’s all about the weight - so that is control. Fashion - who wears the crap that (in a preset manner) ‘walks’ down the runway - I sure don’t and none of my girls would either. And I am sick and tired of the ‘girls’ in the Industries complaining about the ‘pressure’ to look and/or act a certain way - (Barbi Twins who loved being in Playboy but then whined like good little liberals when the weight machinations they used to get that spread - took over their lives - boo freakin hoo)
Long time ago, after Designing Women ended Delta Burke went on to do Woman of the House (1995). Not a good followup (Suzanne Sugarbaker goes to Congress) but episode 9 (Women in Film) - which the majority of the CBS affiliates would not show was possibly the best on tv - showed women in abusive, stereotypical scantily clad roles - As her character - Ms Burke simply begged women actresses to not do the roles.
I am so shocked and amazed that the simple task (read a comment on our current political situation - ‘and there is nothing we can do about it’) of standing up, saying not NO but Hell No and setting it back to guidelines that humane people can live with - is now considered impossible. This is America people - We Can Do Anything. I weep that way too many people have bought into the ‘there is nothing we can do’ b***s***.
As I said the average womeas size is size 10 - thus this crap of scarecrows with size 0 hanging off them - is stupid. It is insulting and is what makes women from teen years obsessed with weight (although Playboy et al - add to the problem too).
Control - pleeeze - anything that makes anyone feel less capable, less confident, less able and certainly less desirable - is a form of control.
Finally, yes I got an Asian made shirt last year - and their medium was less than (teach me to try on clothing before I buy).
Global Uniform sizing standards - who died and made you God? And why in the name of Vera Wang should I chose metric at all, ever. I am American and I prefer my size 12 (slimming down to a size 10 as we speak).
A Proud American Infidel
08/23/2010 at 04:04 PM
08/24/2010 at 06:18 PM
