Another question that one might examine is, why is this topic never discussed?
This issue is the proverbial "elephant in the room," the glaring problem with fashion that no one dares address. The society in which we live has instituted a political gospel so absolute, a "velvet totalitarianism" (call it "political correctness" or "social justice" or whatever you wish) so complete, that even the most obvious truths cannot be asserted, if they antagonize today's cultural arbiters.
For the well-being of its members, society must stop worrying about offense, especially since offense itself is no longer even genuine, but has become a political stratagem, a means by which a group gains and maintains power.
The simple fact is that today, the fashion industry holds women to standards that are devised by individuals who are not attracted to women,
who have an innate alienation from femininity, yet who have instituted themselves as the arbiters of how women are supposed to look.
One might as well have religious sermons penned by atheists.
Because of the predispositions of the individuals who have created them, modern fashion standards insist that women should have as few curves as possible, and should look as boyish and unfeminine as they can.
It's utter madness.
These standards are by definition unnatural for women--so no wonder that women suffer terribly (to the point of developing eating disorders) in attempting to conform to them. This manner of appearance is antithetical to their own bodies.
It is time to reject these alien and unnatural standards, which cause so much harm. It is time to acknowledge where and with whom those standards originate, regardless of what offense this may cause.
Who has made these "rules"? By what right?
It is time to tell the individuals behind these standards that they have no business inflicting such misery on women, just for something as shallow and trivial as their own anti-feminine aesthetic inclinations; to tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves for having the arrogance to impose themselves in this field in the first place; to tell them that if they want to remain in this profession, they must put the natural figures and desires of women first.
They were wrong to tell women to starve.
They were wrong to tell women not to look like women.
They were wrong to put their warped "taste" above women's well-being.
The healing will only begin when these individuals acquire the humility and the decency to reform their standards completely, in favour of the natural ideal of beauty that they drove out--the timeless ideal that was in tune with women's bodies, and was conducive to health, well-being, and happiness, instead of lifelong misery and starvation.
And if they can't, then they have no business being in this field in the first place, because their influence has been proven to be toxic.
In the case cited above, the government should have stepped in immediately and reversed the situation, so that the group that was excluded was brought back in, and the group that enacted the exclusion was itself driven out.
Lillian Russell embodying the natural, well-fed ideal: