Skinny models just look better, says Karl Lagerfeld

Perfectly understandable as people of Karl's persuation find bodies resembling pre-pubescent boys to be quite attractive.

Mr. Lagerfeld seems to be confused. People aren't begging for overweight models, they are asking to see ones that are not UNDERweight. Or to see more than the one single bodytype that has been pushed at people over the last decades.

That's not "fat mummies" complaining, that's women at a healthy weight NOT identifying with the ridiculous standards anymore.

Ultimately, you use the models to sell something. If your customer base is getting turned off by the models because they're done trying to identify with an unreachable goal... do you blame and insult the customer base? Yeah, right.

People aren't clamoring for normal weight models as much as they are clamoring for clothes that look good on normal weight people.

Maybe that goal just stretches Lagerfeld's talents a bit too much.

What I don't get, and I am a woman! Why do we let some gay guys tell us what to wear? And what is in? So who cares what he thinks or wants? I don't.

Women like to look thin. When they see a model wearing an outfit they would like to look like that (if they are to actually purchase something they must first desire it). No woman wants to look "fat".

I have no respect for Lagerfeld, but in this he is right. To women, thin women look better. In all my years I have never heard a woman say, "Oh, if only my thighs and backside were a little larger!".

If women were more receptive to fat models (and thus bought more product with their use), Lagerfeld would use them (and thus achieve the goal, more money).

I've always thought it odd, as men are happier with a woman being well-fed (not grossly obese) than women are.

Couture clothes look better on thin (not to mention tall) women than they do on larger women. Because they are designed to be modeled by thin, tall women. It's simple.

@DavidtheNorseman

Actually, as a woman, I'm proud of my curves. If a woman is skinny genetically, whatever. But for me, I like that I have hips; I wouldn't like looking like a pre-pubescent boy anyway. I try to stay fit for the health benefits, not the weight ones. Seeing as you're not a female, don't paint us all with one brush. Some of us actually do think curves look better, and it's not just in some backward response to the modelling industry, either.

And BTW, as a teen, I was a national-level competitive swimmer. I was thin in the extreme from training and had ultra-skinny legs. After I quit and worked enough with weights, it was one of the best days of my young-adulthood when I tried on jeans in the changing room and my legs filled them out. I was pumped to have curves. So maybe you've only been around a certain type of woman if nobody has ever said they'd like more curves on the bottom. We may not be the majority, but we are out there.

The most popular, successful, supermodels (excepting Kate Moss) are all real women, with real bodies. Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Stephanie Seymour, Naomi Campbell, etc... all are women with curves (in all the right places). This unhealthy obsession with toothpick-thin models (which I find extremely UN-attractive) is just wrong. Whenever I see any fashion show coverage, the models just make me sick. They ARE sick. I want a woman with a realistic body or at least models that I don't want to take home and feed...

I wish I had a bigger ass.

I know plenty of women who wish they filled out their jeans a bit better. They could gain weight, sure, but the extra pounds wouldn't necessarily go where they wanted them to.

Lagerfeld probably only caters to the "you can never be too rich or too thin" (Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor) crowd. He probably knows his market. Doesn´t mean that anyone else has to care for his opinion or haute couture (a lot of that stuff looks pretty ridiculous anyway).

Get A life

My extra pounds always end up on my boobs and my belly, maybe Mr. Lagerfeld could design something for my skinny ass.

Sorry but these are all women who are very slim, slimmer than the average and they have figures that the vast majority of women of the same age could only dream of. So no comfort for the not-quite-so-slim woman.

Absolutely. His fashion is in the luxury segment and has very little to do with what the masses wear. Normal fashion retailers will make sure their stuff sells, so it has to look good and it has to fit many people. So no reason to worry. No matter what Lagerfeld says, the masses will continue finding huge ranges of new and suitable styles in their usual stores.

When designers start advertising with emaciated models like this one in a recent RL advertisement or strutting them down the runaway is IMHO an example of when it crosses the line of responsible advertisement. This depicts an unrealistic image of what a healthy woman's body should actually look like and could pose a danger of reinforcement for young women who are struggling with bulemia and anoxeria.

Why care what Lagerfeld says when he's just saying something controversial for attention and self-promotion.

(attached image)

LR, I was just about to post that. Doesn't it just make you sick, that they think they can even get away with something like that? I mean, even people with horribly distorted ideas of body image HAVE to realize that that is even more beyond unnatural than most models.

This foto looks like it's been morphed. The head is far too big for the rest of the body.

Yes, it's been clearly photoshopped.

I shall now weigh into this debate with my considered intellectual opinion.

I would break that.

Therefore, let's have some normal women modelling please.

Should I declare at this point that I'm not so interested in the fashion?

It's got photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com written down the side. Show me that on an RL website and I'll believe it. Of course I doubt you'll be able to.

Too many people wanting too much drama. That's what sickens me rather than a few skinny bints on a catwalk who nobody really cares about.

I couldn't disagree more. Have you seen Christina Hendricks on Mad Men? If more fashion models looked like her, wearing clothes designed for her curves, normal women who actually have similar bodies would feel a very real desire to purchase those clothes. And a few might wish to have her rounder curves.

This is, I think, clearly a case of the fashion industry having deviated from reality at an ever increasing pace, not women letting some alleged natural dislike of normal bodies dictate their spending choices. (The dieting industry would be the market that profits from this induced dislike.)

Besides, there's still no one talking about "fat models". Most are asking for normal women at a healthy weight, and a little more variety in body type.

She's not emaciated, some idiot in the studio went mad with Photoshop. RL have been rightly spanked over this campaign and they've since apologized.

(attached image)This is the same woman.

We live in a world where many people believe that being skinny/thin is better or considered to be healthier. However, is it really healthy for some models to deprive themselves of food just to become skinny/thin (anorexic) in order to present fashionable clothing to a mostly affluent audience? I guess the desire to become a successful/lucrative model outweighs the need to eat regular/balanced meals and maintaining a sensible weight and exercise program. What?s attractive about being able to see the inner bones in a woman?s chest cavity? Or watching them walk down a runway with legs and arms, resembling twigs on a small tree? If it were not for the make-up on some of the skinny models, they could probably take the place of the skeleton on the HBO television series, ?Tales from the Crypt?. Anyway, nowadays, it looks like Karl Lagerfeld needs to eat more regular meals himself.

What's with all the homophobia? Karl Lagerfeld does not represent all gay people, so just acknowledge that as his opinion and get on with it. And not all gay guys are fashion designers, and most gay guys are not into pre-pubescent boys like this fool above wrote.

As a photographer, I find shooting models with more angular figures simply more interesting - and a lot less work in post - than shooting those with excess body fat. Not jutting ribs and hip bones, but definitely sculpted to a degree beyond 'average'.

As he says, it is fantasy.

Karl Lagerfeld and Haute Couture decision-makers are wrong!

Or the teens, who are quite impressionable. I was pretty disturbed last week when I saw some middle-aged guy on a morning show discussing with an obviously worked-on woman that "teenaged girls KNOW normal women don't look like that."

At issue isn't whether or not teens know normal women don't look like that, it's that they internalize the message that normal women SHOULD look like that. That's why they call them models (duh.)

Being thinner isn't associated with looking younger. People who grow old thin look just as old and wrinkly as people who grow old fat. I think the true reason for the preference of thin models is that especially extravagant clothes look better the thinner a person is. The fatter you are, the less you can afford extravagant styles, striking colours or revealing cuts. Extremely fat people can wear what they want, it just looks awful. With normal weight, it's already a lot better. But a truly thin person can wear any style, it always looks good. And that's what counts. Fashion makers want to impress and present their collections in the best possible light, so they have to rely on thin models.

Hmm skinny models or a sleazy old man, who dresses totally inappropriately for his age, designing fashion and commenting on what size women should be. Well I don't like skinny models myself but anything outclasses Karl

No fat chicks.

I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to have more representative body models in advertising. diversity is beautiful (also a reason why g/f's freak out at me for checking out other girls...). ironically that would work out better for men because those fashion mags wouldn't be warping the minds of young women and trying to tell them about beauty ideals. it would eradicate (hopefully) the high maintenance woman.

the worst thing that happens to girls is when they become body conscious. nothing like a chubby girl who's confident in bed, despite me not really fancying chubby girls...

lately, i'm really digging a tall thin girl that on some days I think I need to cook for her. even she pushes the limit of looking healthy she's so thin, but i'm pretty sure it comes down to her metabolism. either way, not typically being the guy who gets the girl with the flat smooth stomach, that's really a beautiful thing.

i guess i'm just blabbing about my tastes more than what I think about skeletons on runways... my point is, each girl has their own ideal form for the body they were born with. they should try for that, rather than trying to fit to a form that isn't even suitable for your bones. to show that women have diversity, i can't see how this can hurt.

i think karl lagerfeld is a douchebag. what's with the 80's BMX gloves anyway?

Oh Karl, what a funny little old man.. I always thought he looked like some kind of transvestite hobo..

Time to retire to your fantasy castle.

Ha ha .....

my newborn was very "chubby"....

She was the yongest I knew....

[a man speaking here] I totally support Dove's 'campaign for real beauty' I don't understand why there aren't more magazines that feature *real* un-photoshoped women, if you ask your average man who he thinks is really beautiful: a double-zero stick figure or a curvy normal looking women he'd go for the latter everytime, guys love normal curved women countless surveys confirm this. If you wonder what I mean by 'normal', something like this: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=dove%20real%20women&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

It seems as though Lagerfeld thinks that we can only exist in extremes, thin to the point of starvation or apparently sitting on the couch scoffing doritos all night.. what a warped view of life he must have.

I'm guessing most of you have seen this but to those who haven't, the interesting part is what happens in photoshop, not with the layers upon layers of make-up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U&feature=related

I'm glad my girlfriend hasn't been brainwashed by those stupid fashion magazines and knows that I love every bit of her, just the way she is.

Men don't buy fashion magazines in any numbers that could affect what goes in them. So what men want is relegated to what gays and women think that men want - which is not even close to the same thing.

Agreed on the douchebag part. C'mon, this guy was a fattie himself. He also clearly has to employ that bobble-head starched collar look because you'd probably throw up if you saw what was underneath.

Also completely agree on the Dove ad campaign (on which I've posted previously).

Yep, models are supposed to sell fashion, not to turn on the bfs/husbands of the magazine buyers.

Karl Lagerfeld, whom I find highly amusing in interviews, likes to make hyperbolic, snide remarks. That aside, I can understand his point that for presenting fashion, designers want a certain body type that translates their work best. The Dove girls don't hurt the eye, but on a catwalk they wouldn't look great. Designers create a radical prototype of what they see as the next fashionable thing, and models with too many curves and little fat rolls would distract from their creations. That said, I don't like the current ideal of super-skinny, pale and alien-like catwalk look either. I wonder about the significance of the trend. The 90ies supermodels had distinctive, well-known faces and more healthy, athletic bodies. Then there was the wave of models from east-european countries. The individual supermodel was replaced by masses of models of more or less the same type, and the outstanding ones are only semi-celebrities. Perhaps these economic changes ? an oversupply of model aspirants ? made it easier for the fashion industry to impose ever more extreme weight requirements, with so many competing models willing to outdo each other.

At any rate, the problem of women eagerly trying to adapt to ideals set by others goes beyond the fashion industry. On a daily basis, we are confronted with questionable beauty ideals through advertisement and media (photoshopped flawlessness, fake breasts, ...). The catwalk isn't that influential, more so the so-called celebrities, of whom some apparently starve themselves in order to gain a little attention. If women absolutely need ideals to look up too, there are some: take for example Michelle Obama, who most of the time looks fantastic in designer and retailer clothes, with a fit, but not skinny body.

Pretty typical, seeing he is a man and probably doesn't have any first-hand experience of what it's like being a woman trying to feel good about her body. Skinny and curvy are RELATIVE. You don't have to be overweight to be curvy, but if he wants stick-thin models all the time, then he doesn't live in reality. Pictures of models DO affect how women feel about themselves, and that's the most important thing.

yeah, but i think girls have their own responsibility to let that affect them or not. i mean, the same goes on in guys' magazines nowadays. some shirtless dude wet on a rocky beach, trying to burn a hole through the camera lens with his eyes. look at my body then buy some aftershave.

i could sit around thinking - damn son, maybe girls do want a six-pack instead of a keg - or i could focus on being interesting.

i would rather have a slightly less attractive (on the outside) girl who can make me laugh, rather than some annoying bombshell. furthermore i'd rather have a plump girl who's awesome in bed than a skinny girl who's all shy and ashamed of her slightly weird baby toe, or whatever.

so, to an extent it's not fair to blame magazines for girls' negative body images. it only plays a part. the world is very "you have to be this, do that, if you wanna 'get ahead' ". the people who get ahead are those who - while knowing that these "rules" exist - do it their own way. and they get ahead because they're not like everyone else.

How about we change the name fashion to "Art" as most the creations on the cat walk you wouldnt be rushing out to buy anyway. Best solution to this problem is to stop buying these magazines.

Some anatomy in response to a previous post in regards to skinny girls being more fertile - Studies have shown that being underweight could cause you to have troubles becoming pregnant. The main reason being women who are underweight may not ovulate, have a menstrual cycle, or enough fat for proper hormonal balance.

There is the same problem in the horse racing industry too with unrealistic weight expectations. And these are sports people who have a physically demanding job.

I dont think we can blame designers for weight issues people it is their creative field and they need the right shape to hang there products on and I dont think a dress makers dolls would be quite as effective.

The most common reason therapists hear from people about why they began self-starvation, bingeing or purging is that at some point they felt terribly out of control -- whether because of something they were feeling inside themselves or something that was happening to them from their outside environment.

I am for curves and think stick thin women dont look natural.

Keyra Augustina is the hottest chic on the planet.

I can only imagine what a gay designer's gay buddies would say to him if he made her the new supermodel Queen ...

"You're clearly not gay enough for us , go hang out with your non gay buddies... hey get some poon while your at it - HETERO!"

And why do women listen to these creeps... well it's not as if they want to listen to real men now anyway is it?

Karl reckons nobody wants to see fat chicks.

Well, that's funny, perhaps because uncannily enough, most people don't want to see a bulimic octogenarian freak, resembling Joe 90s vampire gimpoid Granddad, tottering about with his orange-on-a-toothpick head, rubber lips and sunglasses at night, pontificating about what we do and don't want to see.

(attached image)

The super thin models are dreadful. All those chicks look like they were just rescued from Auschwitz.

I think it's awesome that Brigitte is going with "normal" sized models. Once upon a time, that was normal. In the 1950's, the average model was 9% smaller than the smaller average. Now she's 26% smaller. That's not healthy. We aren't designed to be that small. Why then, do we create this ideal for a woman that no woman can achieve without starvation or surgery.

It reminds me of when Elizabeth Hurley called Marilyn Monroe fat. Here she is from one of her heavier periods...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfbMtSs2P8A

Oh God... please make me fat like that!

But then as more than one person has said on here- Lagerfeld is gay. I think he designs for what he finds attractive. That would be young men. Men don't have hips or bubble bums or curves. Look at the women he's surrounded by in the picture. They almost have boyish bodies.

You've got to laugh at someone who looks like a poorly preserved corpse describing anyone else as ugly ...

Yes, super thin models - the sickly looking ones - are dreadful. But fat chicks are too.. Nobody likes fat.

Went to a basketball game yesterday, and the cheerleaders were all chubby. By "normal" standards - probably the PC-type ones being longed for here, these girls were "normal" - maybe even thinnish..

But they were fat.

A girl who is "normal" size at 30 will be fat at 45.

An anorexic at 30 will be passable at 45.

I used to work as a doorman at a very popular bar at a big university in the States.. Night after night I checked ID's, and ultimately I came to the conclusion that, for women, harsh as it is, 28 is the peak age. After that it all starts to sag and widen out.. Those chicks who still look really good after 28 are the rare exception.. Either they have freakish genes, or freakish discipline re diet and sports..

Harsh but true.

Wow. I'm sorry... but have they even discovered fire where you live? Not only is that incredibly condescending, demeaning and out of line, it's positively cro-magnon.

Bullshit - being young just means you get away with shitty diet and all exercise.

Same for doods honestly.

Here's Jamie Eason - 33 , 2 kids , breast cancer survivor

Every single person can go a long long way towards looking as they want to - it's just a question as to what they're prepared to do to get there.

An anorexic at 30 is either dead or seriously ill at 45.

nothing sexy about that mate.

I am some what over weight myself, and as a fat chick I highly object to having to look at an ageing, badly dressed tosser with terrible hair, weird plastic surgery and orange skin.

I may be WAY to fat and short to work for him, but he is way to poncey, old and weird for me to even talk too.

And as a fashion/costume designer my self, i personaly like to see my creations on a woman that LOOKS like a woman, not an enlongated starving child.

RE Christina Hendricks as a woman with "real curves" -- come on, she's skinny with huge tits. I would love to look like that.

http://www.esquire.com/women/women-we-love/christina-hendricks-photos-0909#imgI think KL is hard on fatties because he was one himself -- and he did what he had to do to get over it. Apparently just diet, but I haven't read …[/quote]Wouldn't that statistical difference have more to do with the epidemic of obesity? Models may've slimmed down a bit, but everyone who's not a model has gotten a whole lot fatter. On average.

For reference, Marilyn Monroe:

http://letters.salon.com/21c4b93ede4bc65707d9b007cdf8898a/author/index445.htmlWhoa clicking on some links brought me to http://www.buffiethebody.com/ -- now that's a body shape I haven't seen before. Read about her here: [url=http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/07/obesity/index.html]Healthy, my ass: Many blacks love big women, but having a rump the size of Buffie the Body's can put women at risk for disease.

(attached image)

(attached image)

Uncanny really.

What's his excuse for the bicycle gloves - excessive masturbation?

She was about a US size 12 when she sang 'Happy Birthday' to JFK, actually. Not that a 12 is by any means overweight.

As for the model reference- no. It's nothing to do with obesity. Models used to be a size 4-6. Now they are a 00. The size of a 00 has only been invented in the last 10-15 years. Western women weren't that small. One of the major designers- Armani or Valentino, I think, but I can't quite remember- said that he didn't want to make sizes for women that small but the demand from the Hollywood stylists was too great. People like Rachel Zoe who get girls who are a US size 6 strung out on Adderall or even more dangerous drugs like Clenbuterol to get them down the extra sizes. There are jokes in LA about Adderall and champagne being a starlet's daily meal. That's wrong. It's also about the only way most women can get down to that emaciated look- a la - Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan. The other way aspiring models achieve that heroin chic look is to have their back molars removed- last one and sometimes the last two- (again- if they don't fall out due to chronic anorexia) or they have their bottom two ribs removed. (those are the floating ribs) Oh wait- then because they are so thin that they are no longer menstruating and really have no breasts because that is, after all, fat- they often get breast implants or ass implants or both.

It's horrid that it has become that bad. People who are thin naturally are one thing but very, very few people of european ancestry are actually naturally smaller than a size 4. Like, left to normal diet and exercise.

So there you go. If you think anorexic women are sexy- like HerrDinksbumps... that's what you are advocating.

Have you seen her on Mad Men? She stands out against the other actresses, and it's not just her breast size. Not skinny. No doubt Lagerfeld would consider her way too fat. Because she has big breasts and a curvy backside. Because it IS a normal look that many women have and it must never ever appear on a catwalk because her fat ugliness would just ruin everything?

The elves probably had a night off and he had to make all those dresses hisself and pricked a finger.

Such are the hardships one has to endure in La-La Land.

No. Because it's hard to dress. Lagerfeld and some other designers aren't into emphasizing the beauty of a woman's body, whether it's thin or not. They're more interested in emphasizing the beauty of their own clothes. Curves, by definition, destroy the line.

It just comes down to one thing, MONEY, it's cheaper to make fashion samples in a 0-00, than say a size 6.

Maybe Lagerfeld should just put his stuff on a wire hanger, they're really cheap, they don't require food, won't complain, and come in a variety of colors......make the right choice before all those women who died of anorexia come to haunt the devil out of you!

Wow..61 comments on this nonsense...

Well, in that case he should stop calling it "fashion" and call it "textile art" because it clearly isn't even supposed to have a connection to human bodies and clothing anymore. It seems kind of insane to me to create "clothing" that is visually destroyed by the human body underneath it.

I disagree. Without understanding and appreciating female bodies, Lagerfeld wouldn't be so successful. Women wouldn't want to buy clothes at exorbitant prices that simply hide their bodies. I think it's a misconception that because some designers are gay, they can't see female beauty.

The fact that he's no spring chicken any more and dresses bizarrely himself (fashion designers either dress in black or à la Vivian Westwood) is not a valid argument against him expressing his idea of beauty.

Isn't it possible to be "for" curves and still be able to appreciate that they are not the world's only acceptable/attractive body type?

I am not a small woman, and precisely for the reason that I have been ridiculed for it, would I never judge another person's body type.

Some people are born with small frames and high metabolisms. And some people do starve themselves, but why is it ok to judge them and not people who gorge themselves?

I think judging a person based on their body type is one of the shallowest things you can do... and I would be pretty insulted if someone skinny woman, who was "for" stick thin bodies and "against" fatter bodies, walked up to me and told me I look unnatural. This is who I am, it is natural for me, thank you very much.

Karl Lagerfeld is off the mark when he claims that the only people who don't appreciate a stick thin body are fat lazy mummies sitting in front of the television, but I do think this idea of "for" and "against" is highly perpetuated by women who, resenting their inability or unwillingness to pursue the sometimes inconvenient and uncomfortable lifestyle of being slender, claim that "only a dog wants a bone" and that "real women have curves". Saying that a woman who has chosen a different lifestlye than yours is somehow less of a woman--whatever that means--makes one appear petty and jealous.

As for whether or not I give two shits about who wears the clothing on the runway, I'll decide the next time I'm invited to a fashion show or buying clothes made for women ten sizes smaller than me. Not holding my breath on that one.

That's a good point but it goes both ways, and it's not JUST women. Men, whether they tend toward one direction or the other, can be horribly dismissive of any female body type that doesn't happen to meet their tastes.

Similarly, there is an incredibly amount of pettiness about body types from women to women. Just take breast size. Small-breasted women denounce large-breasted women and the other way around, as if either party made a conscious choice about it in order to reject the other group.

There is a LOT of aggression in our society about body image, some of it is self-directed, some of it is directed at others, some of it is ancient, a lot of it is recent. There is an amount of judgment going on that's downright disturbing. Fat people are lazy, very skinny people are insecure and sick, overtly athletic people are control freaks, etc. We even judge others about what body type they find beautiful. It's a sort of body image fascism that is very difficult to shake off.

agree 100% on all points.

Think is though that this "body image fascism" has always been with us it is just that at the moment it is 180 degrees away from what it used to be.

17th Century

Skinny tanned people with short hair = peasants who work in the fields.

Fat very white people with long hair = gentle born folk who have servants for the rough stuff.

Now?

A great passage from The Full Monty (for those of you who don't know a film about 6 unemployed men who try to raise cash by doing a stage act like the Chippendales but doing a full strip)Perhaps Mr Lagerfeld may wish to look in the mirror occasionally

I don't think that's quite comparable.

There were ideals of beauty in art, and certainly people have at all times striven to meet certain ideals (corsets, anyone?), but it's dang certain that a tanned, skinny peasant woman wasn't sent a nigh on constant message by media and people around her that she is ugly and fails to meet society's standards, that her being skinny and tan means she's sick, insecure, lazy, irresponsible and "not a real woman".

People were less surrounded by media, had a much greater opportunity to set their standards by the people around them, i.e. average people, and feel accordingly confident. Basically, there was a popular bodytype in art, but it was NOT practiced to the current degree I call "fascism".

Nowadays media present us with a disproportionate amount of a very limited, specific body-type, while our opportunity to actually see normal nude bodies has gone way down. Adolescents rely on the media, whether they want to or not, to set their standards and the standard set there is unrealistic and damaging, all of which is carried on in society with a destructive sense of aggression.

could it not be also argued that what you refer to as the "average person" was not nearly as overweight as today's average Westerner?

I don't want to disagree with every point you're making, but if we are going to compare values and beauty standards of the past to the present, it must be said that today's average American/English woman is probably quite a bit heavier than she was 250 years ago. Besides the fact that she barely had access to a newspaper twice a year, much less media bombardment several times daily.

The comparison seems somehow moot however you look at it.

I would have thought that actually being a tanned, skinny peasant woman would have been the absolute definition of being "ugly and fails to meet society's standards, sick, insecure, lazy, irresponsible and "not a real woman" in the time and place we are discussing.

When you spend your life grubbing in the fields covered in shite and the lady of the manor goes past (Fat white etc) do you not think that you might feel somewhat lacking?

This is purely speculation but it might even have been worse then than now, for instance the question of how long your hair could be was ridgidly enforced by your "place" in society only gentlemen could have long hair and removing your hat in greeting (to show your hair length) came from that.

The difference now of course is that anyone can try and change their body image (skin whitener, hair straightener, liposuction etc etc) to try and fit in or mimic the "ideal" they are trying to reach.

Yes, obviously, but that isn't really relevant when we are talking about comparing ourselves to our peers.

A 1534 average woman would be able to judge herself as average and feel accordingly confident.

A 2009 lightly overweight and thus average woman would not be comparing herself to the average woman (lightly overweight) but to the constant barrage of a decidedly not average bodytype as the one standard of beauty. That way, a vast number of women who are not actually unhealthy or obese or even moderately overweight, just on the heavier end of healthy, are made to feel inferior, and are also judged a lot more harshly and personally than a not-average woman of the past would have been.

It's not about comparing beauty standards of different times but about comparing the exposure to unrealistic standards and the resulting judgment.

But here you're comparing class and body image.

She would have looked poor. Maybe ugly to a rich gentleman going by (then again, maybe not), but I'm fairly certain she would not have been called any of those adjectives above, especially by her own social class, for looking like what she is. A poor peasant back then still had her place in society and looking like one when you were one was not shameful and ostracising in the way body type can be today.

Good point .

Maybe it is the dissatisfaction caused by not knowing your place that is the problem

It might be! I mean, it's certainly an angle. We're all supposed to be successful, beautiful, young, well-informed, etc. There is a lot of pressure in our lives these days and a lot less room for those who don't fit. Body type is one of those areas where conformity is demanded and difference most easily spotted, most easily judged.

Double-zero doesn't necessarily mean stick figure, in fact in sounds just fine for women less than 5' tall, of which there are many. Models are usually 5'10" or taller - they would indeed be stick figures in a double-zero. Most of us, whom you might call 'normal', are significantly shorter, 5'3" to 5'4" on average.If you want to compare today's model size to average size ratio to that from the 1950s you also need to compare average sizes of the general population from that decade to today's. Since obesity rates in all western countries have increased significantly over the past 50-60 years, so have average sizes. By 'size' in don't mean clothes size - we all know that a 12 from the 1950s isn't anything like a size 12 today - I mean actual body measurements in inches or cm.

Models have always been quite a bit on the skinny side. Remember Twiggy? That was in the 1960s. I don't think models nowadays are skinnier than her. It's the rest of us who are so much more bigger. And yes, that's not healthy.

Lagerfeld stated that women who prefer normal-sized models are "fat mummies sitting in front of the television."

To me, that shows prejudice, not concern for their health.

Twiggy was considered extremely thin in her time. If her size is now the norm for "models nowadays", things have indeed changed, and not just in the average weight.

You're twisting my words. I did not say that her size is the norm for models nowadays (I don't know what that might be), I only stated her as an example for a skinny model from a long time ago. I'm sure there were others. Fashion was different in the 1950s too - tiny waists and emphasis on chest and hips. Those dresses made women look fuller than they actually were.

My point was that a model of Twiggy's size or close to it is no longer unusual. So yes, there have been changes in the modeling world toward a more skinny body type. Are you claiming that Twiggy was not considered unusual, that models in the 1950's were generally the same shape as skinny models today and fashion just hid it? That our perception of them has only changed because the average body weight has gone up?

Oh please! The "Marilyn Monroe was a size 12 and would nowadays be considered fat" myth has been debunked about two million times. While…[/quote]No, it is due to size inflation. People are getting bigger, but it has been shown that women are more likely to buy items labeled with a smaller size. That leads to clothing manufactures re-labeling their size 14s as 12s,..., and their 0s to 00 - they still want to sell to those dodging the trend to larger bellies. There have been several rounds of this already - about 15 years ago I was size 6-8, now I'm 2-4 and I did not lose weight. In the 1960s I probably would have been a 10-12.Even if that were true (I doubt it, size 4 isn't that small anymore), there are plenty people of non-European ancestry, even models. Your point?

I don't know how the percentage of ultra-thin models was in the 1960s, nor do I know what it is now. Models have always been very slim, are very slim, and will probably always be very slim.

No, 1950s models did not have the exaxtly same shape as 2009 models - they needed to have very tiny waists, i.e. needed to be very slim too, but along with big chests. The big chests have gone out of style since, along with the dresses emphasizing them.

Yes, our perception has most definitely changed because of that. Most teenaged girls were quite thin in the 1960s, though most of them not as thin as Twiggy, but much closer to model size than average teenaged girls in 2009 of whom a large percentage is already overweight or obese.

Hmmm...according to sources, Marilyn's dress size would have been between a 12-18 back in the day (based on her measurements), which would convert to a size 6-10 in nowadays terms (depending on the dress, fit, company, etc.). Not fat by any means, but a far cry from the size 00 that the sex symbols of today are. (http://fatnutritionist.com/index.php/the-body-of-marilyn-monroe/) Well...perhaps in the fashion industry, but I don't know if the general populace would concur.

(And also, I would have to say that a lot of the "in" dresses nowadays do in fact emphasize large chests, it's just that they're generally seen on teeny tiny models with bare minimal breasts, so the emphasis isn't as overstated on the catwalk as it was back in the day, but stick those suckers on any woman with a cup size bigger than an A, and I assure you, the breasts would be emphasized. But I suppose fashion isn't for every-day wear by every-day people ) Yes, obesity is a problem nowadays. Yes, people were thinner back in the day. Yes, Twiggy was skinny.

But, the thinner people and the skinny Twiggy have nothing on the emaciated bobble-heads that are gracing the runways nowadays. Slimmer is one thing, but being able to count the ribs of a model through her dress is a completely different matter. I agree that clothing flows better on models who are thinner, which is why designers prefer to use them...but at the very least they should be employing models with a healthy BMI (meaning that at the minimum model height of 5'8, even if they weighed 120 pounds, they would be underweight). Images of models bombard women and impressionable teenage girls on a daily basis, and really, the very least that designers could do is put a healthier body shape in front of them.

Naturally thin is one thing, starving and striving to an unhealthy standard is a completely different matter.

And regardless of the "back-in-the-day" debate, and "are models too skinny" debate, Mr. Lagerfeld's comments concerning the non-stick thin populace was out of line.

Lagerfeld's really just trying to stir the pot considering that Brigitte is more of a down-to-earth mag i.e. lots of good, informative articles on politics and world issues mixed in with fashion and beauty spreads that aren't shot in fantasy settings and where the models are usually wearing clothes that you would actually wear in real life. But Lagerfeld isn't the only German designer who thinks high-fashion models should be stick-thin. Wolfgang Joop once claimed that Heidi Klum was too heavy for the catwalk. I think the Victoria's Secret catwalk is a different kind of catwalk cuz she looks okay there to me!

Btw, Brigitte is a great magazine for practicing those advanced German reading skills!

Bild Der Frau makes Brigitte look like Brand Eins.

I'm gonna get it for this, but I also think "Big is beautiful" campaigns are the brainchild of those who overeat and don't exercise, but don't want to be "at fault". Let's face it - we live in a society nowadays where it's the norm to shift blame and not take responsibility for one's actions.

Now please don't "react" to this - every person has a size that is for them. I also don't believe in starving yourself to reach some shape that was never yours to begin with.

Since reaching my mid-40s, I've re-evaluated my idea of beauty. After careful consideration, I've chosen to emulate Venus, the goddess of Love and Beauty, and go for a more classical look. Still working towards reaching my goal. Not quite there yet... need more chocolate.

(attached image)

Venus at a Mirror c. 1615 by Peter Paul Rubens

(attached image)

Venus and Cupid c. 1550 by Tiziano Vecellio a.k.a. Titian

The thing that confuses me about classical art is that the women are rather large... But almost always have rather small breasts for their abundant size.

because it is realistic:) I think it is funny when men comment on "why should girls even care what others think" CLEARLY you have never been a 15 year old girl... Lucky for me I never went through the whole anerexic-bolimic phase

I guess what I don't get is how you reconcile those two positions, unless your "Every person has a size that is for them" comes with the caveat "But they'll still be ugly unless they're skinny".

Big is Beautiful seems to be to be exactly what you say: everyone has a certain natural size (and that doesn't mean they're ugly). Believe it or not (I certainly couldn't) but this is actually a natural look for some women! I have a friend who is honest to goodness obese but her breasts are smaller than mine, and I'm not overweight at all. Unusual but natural, for some fat is just not stored in the breasts. I figure those kind of women would have been popular models back then.

Mostly, though, it's probably that these are idealised shapes supposed to emphasize youth and virginity. An obese teenager might look like that Venus even if she developed larger breasts as she aged, especially since puberty generally hit girls a little later back in those days. This might have been a regular, well-fed young woman's look at the time, if perhaps only very temporarily within her lifespan. My personal theory is also that showing a more mature, womanly breast might have been too close to reality, too suggestive of actual sexual experience and thus too obscene. Female bodies in art were generally based on the ideals of Antiquity and those were not even supposed to be based on reality but on certain conventions of proportion that also favored small breasts.

Obese is obese, no matter what your frame is. Let's not dress up a lack of discipline as beautiful is all I'm saying. True, I find fat girls "less beautiful" than thinner ones, but not always and personality is the trump card anyway.

Like I said earlier, I would gladly sleep with a larger girl if she radiates sunshine and knows what to do/say in bed. Her beauty comes from more than just appearances. That said, I don't know if I could have a long-term relationship with an overweight girl. Sorry. There are equal numbers of people like me but FOR overweight girls, so it evens out.

So some people consider overweight women beautiful but the overweight should still shut up about "big is beautiful" because they are lazy and don't deserve to have their look recognized as beautiful?

I'm still confused.

obese people are not beautiful (visually). got it? instead of exercising and losing weight, they would prefer to run "big is beautiful" campaigns, because there isn't medication that makes them thin and they don't want to be active.

big-boned people, that is, people who honestly have simply a large skeleton, or are curvy or a bit soft in spots, are not a part of the above group. I would not even consider them "big" - well not the big that these big is beautiful groups tend to have.

so how are you confused exactly?

Just curious horseshoe7... would you consider the two women in the paintings I posted to be obese or normal? Are they beautiful in your eyes?

neither. i think the first one is at the limit of the normal for that frame, the second one has a nice shape but a belly that's not attractive.

Funny how different men focus on different body parts. My husband doesn't mind a few extra kilos, but has threatened to divorce me if I ever cut my long hair.

(my hair reaches to my waist)

edit: so... how's this for beeyooteeful?

Gonna be "Cousin Itt" for Hallowe'en this year. No special costume required!

(attached image)

(photo just taken a few minutes ago)

@Cinzia - Guess I look better in hair.

Some people look better out of (modern) clothes than in them. The women in the paintings are an example of that.

I'd imagine a lot of runway models look better IN clothes.

No longer confused. I get your opinion now, thank you.

Though I do point out that there are people who consider obese people beautiful (and not just in terms of personality), so the "big is beautiful" angle does have some merit.

Just caught the news today that the model featured in post #17 and #24, Filippa Hamilton, claims she was fired by Ralph Lauren for being too fat.

Read in the SZ yesterday that, according to the results of a study carried out by the Robert Koch Institute, 1 out of 3 young girls suffer from eating disorders these days. With young they mean aged 11-17. According to Karin Lachenmeir who works at the Klinikum Dritten Orden, they even treat 10-year-olds with eating disorders.

SZ Ariticle (in German): Kinder im Schlankheitswahn

Now, here's the thing. If you look at the dolls little girls play with these days, don't you think they kind of look like these morphed models? Big head etc? It is definitely no coincidence.

On the fun side, the Onion did a pretty good video on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mw1ARQc7vw

This is what should be worrying to us. We are grownups, can decide for ourselves. The models can too. It's their work, their line of business. It's fashion. Useless fashion admittedly, but fashion.

What I as a normal-to-slim woman would however like, is to see stuff I like wearing modelled by women with normal or normal-slim figures. That way you get an idea of what to expect if you for instance buy something from a catalogue on the internet. If they have some labour-camp-look-model wearing those jeans, I am not gonna get an idea of what my arse is gonna look like wearing that.

Yeah, men going on about how women look. Rich. I always think "when was the last time you looked into a mirror, buddy" when I hear or read stupid comments. I went out with a client a few months ago, single guy, singularly unattractive, not rich, balding, uninteresting. He is 47. He told me how unhappy he was, that he was hoping to finally meet someone, but that he had no interest in women older than 40. I was stunned. Really, sometimes I do wonder in what kind of a universe some men live.

Horseshoe, do you think the women in the Dove Real Beauty campaigns are obese? Because they aren't. And they are going for a "big is beautiful" sort of message. At least "bigger than a coathanger is beautiful" message. They are normal to somewhat overweight women but NONE are obese.

can you post examples? i've only ever seen that video where they photoshop the girl to billboard "perfection".

well then why is it called big is beautiful if they are normal?

No I can't, I'm posting from my phone. Maybe, oh, I dontt know, Google it? and it is called big is beautiful because of exactly what has been discussed exhaustively in this thread - peoples views of women is that sticks are the "normal" to strive for, and normal women are horrible lazy tv addicted fatties.

I don't think Dove are going for a 'big is beautiful' message at all (more of a 'normal women' message) and I don't know how you can say that any of those women are 'somewhat overwweight'.

It was done to counter the "thin is in" advertising. Here's an interesting short article about how other types of product advertising changed over the years to reflect the changing view of beautiful bodies: Cherubic but Not as Chubby, Time magazine, Apr. 4 1983

I think the message Dove are going for is pretty much - buy our product.

I remain entirely cynical about the dove "campaign for real women". its simply a new marketing strategy. Now before anyone contradicts me, ask yourselves have you bought a dove product because of this campaign.

Nope - the Dove advert does nothing to induce me to buy their products.

And what is a 'real woman'?

Exactly hams, I hate that saying. I'm pretty sure most of the women on the catwalk have vaginas...

So what if it IS a marketing strategy?

All models are marketing tools, so yeah, if the Dove people change their tool and the new ones agree with me much, much more than others, and I also enjoy their product.. I'll buy. It's a great marketing strategy! I wish more people would use it.

Well, as PezMom3 and I are of similar figure... and only in my opinion, the Dove women really don't agree with me. Using the product will not make me feel better about myself. I want the dream i.e. I may end up looking as fabulous as the slim model advertising other brands... Just like buying a lottery ticket - you buy the dream.

I used to sew costumes for girls (anywhere age 10-19), not exactly the same thing as high fashion, but when a girl came to me with a stick straight fi…[/quote]I always thought there was a greater danger of the male sex being warped by those images. This can't be emphasized enough in this thread. Curvy does not = overweight. At a normal weight, I have curves. The more weight I gain, the more t…[/quote]Could you elaborate, please? I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that all women who look at pictures of models in fashion magazines are affected in some way? Negatively? By "themselves" do you mean how the women feel about their bodies(?) or about their self image?

An interesting aspect that could explain why so many women have a tendency for going fat: For our predecessors who had to go through periods of hunger and deprivation, the ability to easily store body fat even with moderate amounts of food would have brought an advantage for having offspring.

According to other sources she measured 35-22-35 - that's less than 6-10, more like 2-6 (can you imagine having a 22 waist?) depending on item of clothing.Please show me all those emaciated bobble-heads. None of the women on the picture on the first page fits this description - very tall and very slim, yes, emaciated, no. Further down someone posted a picture of a very underweight girl with ribs sticking out. If she is a model and this is the only way for her to fit the standard, rather than being naturally tall and slim, then she shouldn't be a model in the first place. Very few women have this body type which is only one of several requirements to be a model. But then very few have the body type required to be a national level gymnast, or are tall enough to become a professional basketball player. Designers are not in the business of educating teenagers - let's leave that to parents and teachers. They design fashion for a living, it's a business. You and me, and most people, don't buy their designs, why should they give a rodent's behind about what we think?

And how exactly are teenagers bombarded with those images? Are they on TV? I rarely come across any high fashion pics, but then I'm not actively looking for them. I think kids are more 'bombarded' with Hanna Montana (or whatever her name is), the Jonas Brothers, etc., none of whom is emaciated.

Where are all those teenage girls that were 'made anorexic by the fashion industry'? Are they hiding in some caves somewhere? All the ones I see are either normal weight or overweight.

By your reasoning, maybe we should require professional basketball players to reflect 'normal' men, that is no taller than 5'11, or maybe 6'. Think of all the impressionable teenage boys who are only 5'6" or less.The way I read it was more in line with Horseshoe's comment quoted below, with which I agree.

Here's a pic of Crystal Renn. She's the highest paid and most successful"full-figure" model in America. She's been in Dolce and Gabbana ads, catwalked for Gaultier, and was shot by Steven Miesel for Vogue and did a photo shoot for Glamour.

She's at the top of her game at a size 12 and 165 lbs.

She looks good at her size and I think she's wearing that designer dress quite well.

(attached image)

More about Renn, from Wikipedia:

He wants to hide his age-spots.

That Renn chick is FAT.

Marilyn was chubby.

Seriously, it's like dumb people criticizing smart people and saying if only smart people were dumber, dumb people wouldn't feel so bad about themselves.. So dumb should be "the new smart"..

Again, sickly thin is unattractive. But so is FAT. And that Renn chick above is exactly that - a porker.

So did you shag all those women over 28?

No, the under 28's were so much more attractive.. And thinner..

That seems to be a bit of a myth. You find all sorts of treatments in beauty clinics but extracting healthy molars is not part of them and would leave the person with a dysfunctional set of teeth. The same goes for the removal of rib-bones. No doctor who's right in his head will consider such an operation.

And so is her bank roll! With her adiposity she's commanding 7 figures.

Pork on.

No, her bankroll is PHAT.. Her body is FAT. Chris Farley, John Goodman, Oprah - all FAT with PHAT bankrolls. And none of the above are attractive.

Obesity is nothing to do with a lack of discipline. Obese people, just like thin people, eat when they have an appetite. Only that their appetite comes more frequently and lasts longer.

It's like saying that people are lacking discipline because they have a very active sex life.

This way makes more sense to me.

Unless my reading comprehension of the German language is much worse than I think it is, the article states that the main reason for eating disorders …[/quote]What catalogues do you look at? Most mail order catalogues feature these normal-to-slim women. It's not exactly high fashion.

LOL! i wish i knew... and i'm a woman!

A REAL one, with body fat and a vagina!

What, so the kids can rebel and get fat and watch a lot of TV, in opposition to their parents' healthy lifestyle?

How about we all just stop obsessing over food and weight, both our own and others', instead?

(Somehow I knew it was going to come down to the mothers, sooner or later.)

Marilyn was chubby by modern fashion standards, but she is still a sex symbol, Renn is fat, but a successful model.

It's all a mater of taste.

Brigite is a magazine aimed at the average woman, so using the average woman as a model is a great sales idea.

Karl *poncey twat* Largerfeld is geared to a differnet audence, hyper rich women, who can afford personal trainers, lippo surgery, diet pills and cocain addiction, so using ultra thin models is going to work for him.

How Brigite chooses to promote the magazine is non of Lagerfeld's buisness.

No, it doesn't. In both cases it's giving in to one's urges, whether it's the sex drive or appetite.

Didn't you know that this is no longer the case? People no longer give in to urges or lack self discipline.

The phrase to use now is "addict" as in a sex addict/food addict/shopping addict - which means of course that no matter what you do "it isn't your fault" and you can get counselling and all that good stuff.

What is 'average'? I am average to me and that would mean a size 8 (UK).

Magazines need to be concentrating on the shape, not size i.e. petite, pear shaped, hourglass and apple...

Those are the real differentiators between women, not primarily weight.

And why could Renn not take the middle road - she was too skinny and now too big. Maybe gaining 15k instead of over 30k would have been more rational - but of course then maybe she'd just be 'average' and have no modelling career. If being a successful model means going to extremes at either end of the spectrum - then yes, the industry is flawed.

I'll go halfway to say some people have some cause to shift blame off of themselves. Obesity is a bigger problem in the US because there are fewer regulations on food production. For example, you can't get (easily) non-genetically modified corn. Actually, take the corn lobby itself. Do you know the most used sweetener in food products in north america is corn syrup? that's a terrible sweetener and it's no wonder everyone's getting fat. I don't see europeans as a pillar of health, but somehow people here are generally "normal" looking (except the old dudes with the santa claus bellies). Only in North America can you see vomit-inducing obesity, that makes you want to look away but then stare out of sheer fascination. how on earth does someone let themself get that big?

it is discipline. and if you want to compare eating to , at least gets you fit. but there are those who can't get enough sex, and like obesity, wreaks havoc on their lives. so yes, discipline plays a key factor in people's getting mega fat. a few extra pounds, nobody's gonna care, and according to my crew, they all fancy a bit of hip/ass to grab onto. indeed it is nice to see a little wobble when you slap that before you tap that.

Sweet Jesus, the last thing I wanted to become at that age was my mother and it had nothing to do with the way she looked. You are right, there is nothing wrong with your German, the article says the parents are responsible for this. Let's assume this to really be the case. Where do the parents get these ideas from though? I guess from the media. Kids aren't blind, they notice the world around them. If the fashion industry, which is very important to the average female teenager, propagates extreme skinniness to be diserable, it is obvious that they would want to become extremely skinny themselves.

If even their parents then put them under pressure to lose weight, I think it's time for us to take this seriously. Btw, I am not a mother so I have no idea, maybe I am talking crap and have no idea what teenagers are really like. I remember myself to have been shy and self-conscious at the time, worried about looking good enough and the way my bod was changing during puberty. From that and from what I know from friends with kids I deducted that most teenagers act like that.Perhaps, but at that age I never cared for what my parents were eating or doing for that matter. Do other teenagers today? They were completely uninteresting people to me. My friends were interesting. If the bones stick out, if the trousers look like they'll slip off the hips without the belt, if the silhouette from the front is straight between waist and hips, from the side is flat where there is supposed to be a botty, how will I know what the jeans would look like on me? No way man, perhaps Canadian catalogues are different. I get the French and the Italian ones. Rarely do they feature a girl with a realistic figure (hips wider than the waist, a botty).

"The media" isn't all that powerful. People have brains and most are able to use them and form their own opinion.The only clothes that any of the kids I know care about are those that are sold at Stitches, H&M, etc, that's what they can afford. Those clothes aren't even shown in models, at least not at Stitches. They've got some very small clothes there but also some that would be way to big even for me and I'm fully grown, something that can't be said for most of their target customers. Most teens wouldn't recognize a Lagerfeld design if it bit them in the ass, and even if they would, they probably wouldn't particularly like it.If they are overweight at a young age, maybe some pressure to shape up isn't all that misplaced? Not to starve, but to cut out the junk food, put …[/quote]It's not about caring about what the parents are doing or copying their behaviour. But, please tell me, how exactly can kids know about alternatives to watching TV while munching Doritos and ordering pizza for dinner if that's what Mom and all her friends mothers do? It's the parents' responsibility, mostly, but also the responsibility of our generation in general. You might not have kids but other people's kids can see you and what you're doing. It might be too late for teenagers already, but not for those who are born now or who are little kids now.You can never know what they will look like on you from the way they look on someone else, regardless of who it is. If you're that picky you can't order from a catalogue. You will need to go to a store and try them on.

@ bandida: afaik there is no "height requirement" to joining the NBA. Earl Boykins is 5'5", and while he is an extreme case, there are several other NBA players under 6 feet tall.

As shorty-pants Kate Moss proves, and thicky-pants Renn proves, it isn't always about silly requirements that makes someone good at their job.

If high fashion prefers tall, thin models for their clothing, why on earth should we care?

Harley Davidson likes to use big-busted blondes to sell their motorcycles, but as I never intend to buy any of their products, I can't be bothered about their choice of model. When you guys start dropping serious cash on Karl Lagerfeld's clothing then maybe we have something to talk about... but still, not really.

Karl Lagerfeld is not required to be an EOE, and neither is any designer. I'm not "proud" of companies who choose to use bigger or more "normal" models, and I'm not infuriated with Lagerfeld for being a weightist.

All companies do whatever it takes to make as much money as possible. Sorry, but I honestly don't believe any magazine or toxic chemical cosmetic company really has the "average woman's" best interests at heart as much as they have their bottom line at heart. Period.

The Lagerfeld collection at H&M three years or so ago sold very well. I know. I was at one of the Munich stores on opening morning, and it was a madhouse.For one thing, a lot of kids' TV shows (like Sesame Street) and public service announcements and school nutrition units talk about proper eating.

Nutrition has nothing to do with the original topic, of course. There are all kinds of things that feed into kids' nutrition, not least that the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy these days. Overweight is overwhelmingly a problem for the poor, who are not going to buying Lagerfeld unless he puts out another collection at H&M or Target. But even there, the designer clothing is the most expensive in the store.

It's people like this I imagine are a big part of the Big is beautiful campaign. Sorry, it's not beautiful.

(attached image)

My dad told me as a child, "A man isnt like the saying of a dog looking for a bone, but a man, like a dog would more than not choose a steak over a bone".

However, to model clothes down a catwalk, you need a woman whose thighs do not rub, but STICK thin insects are just not healthy. The majority of those women do not eat, and I am sure have fertility problems. A woman naturally needs fat process hormonal functions which mean do not have.

Also, like someone mentioned before, some of the most successful fashion designers are gay...and womens bodies that are stick thin appeal to their "male" side, so to speak.

oh that's just something fat people say to feel better about themselves.

You're right horseshoe - sounds like a bunch of fat people here trying to justify and rationalize their fatness.

You seem to find it hard to post anything not sounding like hatred and despise.

When you spend a lot of time getting the Beamter Beatdown, then come for some refuge amongst the english speakers here of all places, it's no wonder that some people aren't the ray of sunshine we'd all like them to be.

I'm not sure health fits into this discussion, anyway. There are, for example, studies that show that extreme caloric restriction for adults might help them live longer.

A lot of people whose bodies we may admire aren't technically healthy. I'm thinking of many athletes, dancers, etc.

Yes, we're all addicts, aren't we? Even a newborn baby is already addicted to the mother's milk (or some milk replacement), which can be seen from the baby's agony if doesn't get its fix.

No, it isn't. Apart from a small minority of people who could be potentially fat but stay slim due to constant eating discipline, being slim is a …[/quote]The main difference is that an excessive sex drive doesn't show in the person's appearance and hence doesn't get stigmatized. Fat people are just worse off in this respect. What you have to realize is that people in general tend to put on weight during their lives. The few kilos extra today can easily turn into 30 or 40 kilos in the next 30 or 40 years. All it needs is a weight gain of 1 kilo per year which is next to nothing. You don't even need to eat excessively to achieve that, a tiny amount of 3 grams of body fat each day is enough.

Which is why I say, if you want a wife at 50 who isn't fat, she has to be rail thin at 30...(I didn't choose my wife based on that rationale, but I understand it.. I appreciate attractive women of all ages. And none of them are fat... Just the way it is.)

OR, she has to be downright obsessive when it comes to fitness. And I don't mean going to the gym 2-3 times a week.. I mean, OBSESSIVE to the point that your whole life revolves around it.. I know people like this. You want to look good - it has a price.. - and the price is on an upward curve as you get older. All those celebrities who look so great, also pay a huge price.. Personal trainers, weird diets, WILL, etc..

What's going on here is an argument between those who think the media should portray attractiveness, and those who think it shold portray the reality of ordinary people. When it comes to art and literature for example, I absolutely place myself in the former camp. That mentality is what leads PC to try to achieve university enrollment based on demographic makeup... "Oh wait, there are too many white kids at that school.. There needs to be more blacks and hispanics.." So you end up lowering the standards in an attempt to achieve something that supposedly reflects reality more accurately or whatever.. Hogwash.. Art anyway should strive for perfection - not mediocrity. The media is not quite art, but I suppose in some ways it has the same impulses..

If you want to see ordinary people, look in the freakin' mirror. It's natural that the media portray ideals.. I hate the media btw.. Have been noticing recently all these bullshit stories about the financial crisis.. They go around and ask contrived questions to fit the prepackaged media narrative they are selling.. I talked to a dude yesterday who said he's got more work on than he can handle.. And that's not an isolated case.. Listen to the media though, and everybody's moving into camping places cuz they can't afford a flat...

That might sound like a contradiction on my part, but it's not. Attractive women are thin, whatever the media does or says..

To you. But not to everyone. It's subjective, amongst individuals and cultures.

analogy time: Do Sunderland AFC play "the most att…[/quote]You see, I wouldn't find that attractive. And what kind of psychological issues must a person have to be so dependent on how they look that it totally leads their life and that of their family? If nothing else, such an obsession in beauty and fitness regimes would detract from the time that they dedicate to an obsession with polishing my knob...

Long story short: I think one attribute that many people find attractive (warning: hypocritical generalisation on the way!) is self-confidence. If that self-confidence is (for whatever reason) derived from how that person looks, then it is nonetheless self-confidence. But if such self-confidence is derived from some other source, then I would argue that it is no less valid (arguably more valid) and certainly no less attractive. And one would hope that any obsession with body tone etc was accompanied by an obsession with being kind, pleasant, clever and funny. Because at some point, the knob-polishing has to stop and you have to actually talk to one another... *shudder*

*In the North East, yes: historically and most definitely currently...

I've heard several middle age men over 50 say it's difficult for them to meet women over 50 who they find attractive because they say "many women in this age group are fat". However, the men who I've heard say this are fat themselves.

What's mind boggling to me is how these men expect to offer women something they don't want to accept for themselves?

If that self-confidence is derived from how that person looks, it is going to disintegrate over time anyway, because nobody looks at 50 what they looked like at 20. People who are that invested in their looks, or their body's performance, get seriously cranky when all their work starts delivering diminishing returns. These are not fun people to have around in your middle years and old age.

Exactimundo. Which is why I favour a broad-based* portfolio of assets!* Pun only partially intended

That's right. Many middle aged blokes can quite happily live with a beer belly without hating themselves for it or dreading their mirror image. Most women are different in that respect.

Ms. Renn would probably say this about your comment:

"Fork you".

Crystal Renn is obviously overweight, but her overall shape is still good and her face and neck are well-defined - in contrast to most overweight people. The reason why fatness is ugly is not so much because of the higher body volume, but because of the loss of body shape. Fat builds up in bulges when it accumulates on the body, and it starts to hang down. Some body parts grow much more out of proportion than others. And a previously nice face can become downright ugly if it sits on a huge brim of fat.

Example: Gwyneth Paltrow - normal and in a fatsuit:

http://images.b105.c...row-600x400.jpg

Read this. I don't think we should defend fat people, when you can blame the system. Your argument is also weak because you see a lot more fat people in the US as over here. Why? Food production. Read that link.If girls would stop telling me my little belly is cute, I would probably be more interested in getting super fit.

That said, I don't think I'd ever tell a girl with a smooth round bubble ass that it's too big. Cute would also come to mind. And slapping it.

Yeh. but shed-loads of sex is healthy whereas shed-loads of food isn't...

Dunno. Judging from the photo that LR posted, she seems to have a proportionate (hips/waist) figure.

Anyway, she's more attractive than the sticks seen in Lagerfeld's company. Which, in turn, are more attractive than sticks with boob jobs such as Victoria Beckham.

From BBC News: "Size zero girls 'less attractive'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8327750.stm

"The wider the waistband, the deeper the quicksand (or so I have read"..."The bigger the cushion, the deeper the pushin'"

To each their own. Punkt.

My GF is a fashion design student, and happens to be tall and super thin like a model. Gotta say there are a lot of things she can wear and look stunning in.

Whether that sets a standard of beauty... why should it?

In the same way a lot of guys here (and in that article above) say, they prefer girls that look "normal", with curves and something to grab onto.

But runway modeling is not dating. Let's look at it from another perspective. Instead of V-shaped male underwear models, why don't we get a few lager louts up on the runway, because from what I often hear from girls, they like a lad with a bit of a belly. Makes them somehow cuter.

And that's a fact I can't leave behind.

I'll have to watch the video soon. For some reason I remembered "The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'" but I'm probably wrong.

I always heard it as "mo' cushin' fo' da' pushin'"... ("I like big butts" and all that...)

The rap song I think you have in mind is from the 90s.

The other one is "Big Bottom" from the brilliant 1984 rockumentary "This is Spinal Tap".

Na, it was probably at the %70 black high school I attended for a couple years..

(attached image)

Women of all sizes gorgeous - CNN interview.

Link