Chad

Forbes has run some substantial and thoughtful articles on the emaciated-models issue, and today they published another notable piece on the subject:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/he...cout601503.html

The article effectively outlines the shortcomings of the New York "guidelines," in comparison to the more constructive Spanish approach:



More statements acknowledging the fact that the emaciated standard DOES cause young women to attempt to emulate it (with tragic consequences):



Welcome efforts at stopping the insanity, as Kirsten previously posted:


But the comment that I find most revealing is one designer's facile "defence" of the status quo. Note how his reasoning undoes itself:


That's precisely the problem! The fashion industry has, for decades, suggested the underweight body type is right, and the plus-size body type isn't! What hypocrisy! How grotesquely hypocritical for the industry to be making such an argument now, just because the dangers of the body type that they prefer are being revealed, while they were blilthely suppressing the full-figured feminine body for decades. Promoting an emaciated standard for society - that's what's "scary."

They are reaping what they sowed.

And of course, the two standards (underweight vs. naturally curvy) are not the same, and cannot be compared, any more than poison can be compared to water. The simple fact is that the emaciated body type does cause eating disorders (both in the women who present it on the catwalks, and more tragically, in the young women who emulate it), while the timeless ideal does not. So in fact, this is really a situation where an unhealthy ideal is (hopefully) being supplanted by a healthy ideal. To ignore the distinction - that would be "scary."

HSG

This is an absolutely crucial point. Since one standard of body image (the timeless ideal) is culturally and personally salubrious, while the other standard (modern emaciation) is toxic and often fatal, how can one not determine that one is "right," and the other "wrong"? It would be insane not to do so.

When a doctor knows that one medication will make a patient healthy, while a different substance will make him sick, that doctor must assert that the healthful medication is the "right" one. One substance is "right," and the other is "wrong."

Similarly, equating one cultural ideal with the other, voluptuousness with emaciation, is like equating medicine with poison.

The is no relativism between life and death.

In the Forbes article, it is also encouraging to see Emme, one of the more visible plus-size models, acknowledge the necessity of external regulation of the fashion industry. To the fashion establishment, Emme proposes the following:

"I want us to say, 'That is too thin, and, no, you will not walk in my show,'" she said.

Emme said she was shocked recently by photos sent to her of especially emaciated models appearing in a glossy fashion layout. "I was horrified to look at these pictures," she said, describing the models as "bags of bones dressed in haute couture."

"I was astonished, too, that these girls were booked, that there were obviously people around to see them, that they had to be fitted for the clothes. So, all of this had to be approved," Emme said. "And these girls are skeletal."

"Approved." Exactly. A small handful of individual are personally responsible for the problem, because of their specific decisions.

Today's malignant aesthetic standards don't arise spontaneously. They don't happen due to magic, magnetic fields, or cosmic rays. They happen because specific individuals, in positions of cultural power, make them happen, by imposing their will on society.

This imposing of will would be fine, if their will were being imposed to establish healthy ideals, which benefit the culture.

But if the artistic power-brokers of any given time establish toxic standards that destroy culture, and adversely affect countless individuals (as is the case today), just because they can, just because their marginal tastes incline them towards an abnormal aesthetic that runs contrary to human nature, then they are like computer viruses that hijack a PC. They suppress the cultural hard drive, in favour of their own malicious code. The only solution to such a problem is (like the remedy for a computer virus) for their pernicious influence to be negated.

Just as an infected PC must be debugged of the harmful presence of a virus, before it can return to healthy functioning, so must contemporary society be freed of the modern standards that hold it hostage, so that the timeless ideal of natural beauty can be restored.

Dutch plus-size model Linda Caffa; modelling for Exelle.com in a relaxed, Old World environment:

Emily

One can add Kate Dillon to the list of plus-size models who are (thankfully) advocating external regulation of the fashion industry. Apparently, Kate was on the CBS Evening News yesterday, and came out in support of the Spanish approach -- which (as we've all learned) is the only one that works:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irena...on_b_40531.html

At first, Charlotte Coyle was the only plus-size model vocally supporting this move, so it's wonderful to see more models realizing the necessity of greater pressure on an industry that will never stop poisoning women's minds, unless it is compelled to do so.

Kate knows whereof she speaks, since she almost died of anorexia herself, vainly pursuing th fashion industry's inhuman standards:
The simple fact is that these people are locked in a death roll with their androgynous standard, and sadly, only political efforts such as those of Jose Rivera and Gale Brewer have any hope of effecting change.