today.reuters.com/news/arti...
What do you think about what they've done? Do you agree or not?
Not one for the birds who clearly have an eating disorder but I think they've got a point regarding the naturally gazelle-like models - they can quite appealing.
What I don't understand about fashion is that the clothes they make only look nice on very thin women, but most of the women who will be buying the clothes are not very thin. So why not make clothes that look nice on the majority of women?
Because the majority of women are ugly munters? ;)
Well that's my point exactly. Surely you'd sell more clothes if you made them to suit fat ugly women who are in the majority?
Another thing : why is fashion always about women with hardly anything for men?
because we dont give a fuck about clothes generally, and certainly dont spend much time at all thinking about them.
that's a generalisation of course, but broadly true.
Posted by
Grim..., around September 2006:
Clothes look better on tall, thin women.
They don't want the woman to look good, they want the clothes to look good.
Mmmm. Not all clothes look good on tall, thin women. What about the voluptuous types like Pam Anderson or Catherine Zeta-Jones? They wear dresses that suit a curvey woman and they look very good. Those clothes would look shit on a stick woman who has no boobs. So why don't we see Pam and Catherine types walking down the ramps?
We'll even those dresses are displayed on some catwalk somewhere. You're on about the high fashion ones which get mentioned in the press etc. Those tend to have designers that like to design for the taller, thinner woman. Be honest, half that shit that goes down the catwalks is artsy shit that'll never see the light of day anyway. The clothes are being made for the more functional lady and are being promoted somewhere. You've proved it yourself by mentioning the clothes being worn by Tits McTitties and Grave Robber Jones.
You're on about the high fashion ones which get mentioned in the press etc. Those tend to have designers that like to design for the taller, thinner woman.
Agreed, but why? Why is high fashion for the ultra thin? I don't understand it.
Perhaps it just makes it easier. If all the models are exactly the same shape then any of them can model the clothes. It's got to be far easier to remain stick thin than at a more healthy weight without fluxtuation. (Not condoning it, btw, I can just see some logic in that)
plus, think of the cost of all the fabric...
fashion is a status/aspirational game played BY women FOR women
I wouldnt worry. They'll all be replaced by robots soon anyway.
fashion is a status/aspirational game played BY women FOR women
Bullshit. Versace? Armani? Don't know any others off the top of my head because I'm a pleb. But MOST famous fashion designers are MEN.
(syl, re: Versace and Armani, see Sul's "and Gayers" comment.)
and note that focussing on less than a handful of people at the very top with a view to pretending that that constitutes the entire industry, rather than acknowledging the hundreds or even thousands of MILLIONS of people CREATING and DRIVING the industry, very much underlines my point re the game's structure.
Point taken about women driving the market, but they don't do it alone. The media feeds off this obsession with female "beauty" and you're not suggesting the media is all female I hope. Also, as gay as what Versace was (as well as all the make-up artists/hairdressers/photographers/lighting engineers/producers/etc : mostly male, gay or not*) I'm sure he never complained about all the dollars rolling into his bank account.
*
gay men are still men Alf, as much as that idea repulses you ;)
I was expecting a much larger, probably drunken, rant from Salty when I got in this morning. :(
ALAS! I fear he's done all the ranting he's going to do at me :(
*sigh* Weeeeeell, anyway. Gender wars aside, I'm glad they've decided to put
some limit on the thinness.
Kate Moss (for example) is 5'6" (168cm)tall and weighs 105 pounds (47.7kg)
She only needs to gain 4.4kg to meet the requirement. If she goes to the gym and uses weights, she could gain that in muscle and she would look even better than she does now. (I think)
a fascinating study in determined irresponsibility. this has gone from "men force this on us" to "media force this on us" to "gender war"
any publisher will tell you that the only way to stay afloat is to deliver what a market demands. making money from supplying a mass demand is quite the opposite of control: the remora does not control the shark, the tick does not control the cow. media is at the mercy of the public, not the other way round. if e.g. a magazine does not deliver what its market demands, it fades away and goes bankrupt. simple as that.
pretending that the media forces people to obsess over how they dress or look is like pretending that farmers force you to eat.
Posted by
WarHead, around September 2006:
OK
It's not "determined irresponsibility," it's my opinion, which however misinformed in your eyes, I am still entitled to, last time I checked.
I never said "men force this on us" or the "the media forces this on us"
I said "The media feeds off it." You said it's a game played by women for women. But this is not true. Not only women engage in/benefit from this game, as I tried to illustrate, rather sarcastically and unsuccesfully it seems.
Please don't put words in my mouth. There are enough of my own in there already.
So exactly
how do women create this market? Please explain.
Posted by
syl_DUPE1, around 16th September 2006:
[Aside] Green tea must be bloody healthy:it's fucking disgusting. I don't care if it stops me getting cancer, I'm not drinking it again. ;)
Posted by
Grim..., around 17th September 2006:
Fuck me Syl, I can see why you don't argue very often.
It is - I tried some the other day. It smells like fucking cooking herbs
Posted by
syl_DUPE1, around 17th September 2006:
Why?
All I'm saying is I don't know how it can be women creating this market for clothes that only look good on stick-insects, which are in the minority, and require one to starve oneself and regurgitate ones meals, in order to be thin enough to wear them. It's crazy. And I don't think Saltation should make sweeping statements like "its a game played by women for women" That's just not accurate.
That is irresponsible.
can't point out the obvious right now-- there are 5 huge aggressive farmers here who smashed down my front door and now are holding me down in my own kitchen and pushing food down my throat.
there's not a damn thing i can do about it and i am in NO WAY responsible for my choices and actions, nor the consequences. it MUST be someone else's fault.
no one eats by choice -- farmers control us and force us to eat, each and every one of us.
Posted by
syl_DUPE1, around 18th September 2006:
A very simplistic argument and analogy Sal. Farmers don't force us to eat, but
marketing certainly effects
what we eat.
i point at the moon and you say "that's a finger".
yep, that's simplistic, all right.
hint: try to remember what else was posted on this thread.
Posted by
syl_DUPE1, around 18th September 2006:
But you are resorting to sarcasm instead of explaining what you mean
I rather suspect that this is because you know you are in the wrong
hint: try to remember what else was posted on this thread.
but you have demonstrated unequivocally now that you're more interested in the sound/sight of your own voice than in thinking about the topic, so i'm signing off
Posted by
syl_DUPE1, around 18th September 2006:
:P
(_._)
SORE LOSER!
*puts you over my ample knee*