Originally Posted by Luminosa
And to think, some people actually consider Ms. Crawford a curvaceous model! No offense intended, but I never did see it myself!
That's exactly right. People compare yesterday's supermodels favourably with today's anorexics, but those size-6 models were underweight too. It's an indication of just how much the fashion industry has warped public minds that yesterday's models, who were already emaciated, seem "better" just because today's models are even more horribly corpse-like and malnourished.
It's like saying one lethal narcotic is "okay" just because it's a shade less fatal than an even worse narcotic. BOTH are toxic.
An article mentioned this just the other day:
As the writer says:
I think these magazines and fashion people, along with outrageously scrawny celebrities, are a big part of what's causing our young girls to develop a higher incidence of body hatred and eating disorders.
I witnessed what these images can do to a young woman while attending college in the '80s — when the term “supermodel” first came into vogue.
Many times I watched a girl diet herself to illness...fretting over each little thing she managed to swallow.
Some left college, their parents placing them in treatment centers for eating disorders.
The entire culture focused on thinness and grew into an unhealthy mess that continues and worsens today, affecting even younger girls.
So let's not have any revisionist history and pretend that the supermodels of the '80s were "healthy." They were severely underweight too - just not quite as literally skeletal as today's waifs. But that's just a question of degrees - BOTH types of "supermodels" are harmful.
Really, there is no reason for any model to be any skinnier than a faux-plus model. Many of the models who are passed off as "plus-size" today should be what companies use to represent straight-size fashion, and then the actual plus-size models should be TRULY plus (size 16 or better).
And the waifs, honestly, should just go and eat something, for goodness' sake.