Models too skinny?

[charter.rights]

That's just not good enough. Children are dying sir. This is the second post that you're against the safety of children. Why do you seem to hate protecting children?

We need to enact strong laws in order to ban the use of these anorexic models which is then fed into our young people.

We ban pesticides that hurt our environment and it seems sad to think that some plant is more important than a human being.

We have laws in place which protect pedophiles but none to protect our children from the carelessness of the fashion industry.

Sad.

Sure.

But you had better make sure that they ban fat people from public places while you're at it because there are far more health problems in society from obesity, including deaths of children, than any other affliction. Their presence in public places suggests that it is ok to be extremely obese, and often the children of obese parents emulate that same kind of child abuse.

I can guess which side of the weight spectrum you represent but instead of trying to force your weight issues on others, I would suggest that you set the example instead of the exception.

But all of your myths aside, mass education is the only way to get people to change. The issue really isn't about fat or thin, but about body shape and what corporations promotes a beautiful. If we refused enmasse to support any products that defined beauty as only one model type (including "large women types") then we would have far more affect on change than any government legislation could.

And really, if you were really concerned about children, then you would join the movement to ban ALL children from any exploitation such as delivering newspapers, singing or acting, or pagents etc. This is the worse form of child abuse possible.

Edited October 11, 2009 by charter.rights

[PocketRocket]

That's just not good enough. Children are dying sir. This is the second post that you're against the safety of children. Why do you seem to hate protecting children?

We need to enact strong laws in order to ban the use of these anorexic models which is then fed into our young people.

We ban pesticides that hurt our environment and it seems sad to think that some plant is more important than a human being.

We have laws in place which protect pedophiles but none to protect our children from the carelessness of the fashion industry.

Sad.

TrueMetis seems to have addresses all these points already, at least as capably as I could.

Charter.Rights brought up some fresh points which seem to be relevant, but I'll wait for your response to those....

I'll content myself with addressing your personal attack on my integrity, which I have highlighted in bold print to make it easy for you.

You make the assumption that simply because I disagree with your conclusion, that I am not concerned for the welfare of children.

In that other thread, as you should be aware, my ONLY contention is that you are casting yourself in the triple role of judge/jury/executioner. In that thread a man was accused of a crime, but not convicted.

You have concluded that he is guilty, and you are broadcasting that so-called "guilt" as fact, not simply as your personal opinion.

But I'll leave that thread where it is. We do not need that thread spilling into this one.

But elsewhere you said......

Nanny state, Daddy Dalton or whatever you want to call it gone wild.

.....seemingly showing your disapproval of "nanny-state" mentality.

And yet here in this thread, you actually ask for governments to regulate what a model should look like???

In both threads where we have met, you have given arguments which are counter to points you have raised elsewhere.

You seem to do this on a regular basis. You'll raise a point, or take a stance, and you are completely unshakable in your opinion.

But change the topic, and suddenly you take a completely opposite stance.

There is a word for someone who exhibits this sort of behavior.

That word is hypocrite.

Sad

Sad, indeed, on two counts.

Your inability to see your own hypocrisy for what it is, and sadder yet, your choice of moniker. By calling yourself "Mr Canada" you have and continue to besmirch the name of the country I love and call home.

[Mr.Canada]

I loved the Canada pre 1964 when out true flag flew in Ottawa and not this Liberal rag we have now. Actually that wasn't too bad what is doing Canada in is this new Constitution we have since 1981 we have become a garbage can for the worlds unwanted. When they won't take them elsewhere they come to Canada. Canada never deports them and makes the middle class pay for it all.

Sometimes I think what we need in this country is a good civil war to rebalance things out imo. However Canada is too far gone for that I'm afraid.

[Argus]

To some teenager struggling with body image, I think seeing Kim Kardassian on magazine covers probably means more than seeing these emaciated-looking models dressed in crap that nobody would wear at some fashion show nobody cares about.

So girls can get back to agonizing that their breasts aren't big enough? What a relief!

[charter.rights]

Sometimes I think what we need in this country is a good civil war to rebalance things out imo. However Canada is too far gone for that I'm afraid.

Ya right. Can't win your points in a democracy because the majority don't like your point of view, so advocate for killing the opposition. Nannyism is your concern? We should all be concerned with the fascism you are promoting!

Edited October 11, 2009 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

Your inability to see your own hypocrisy for what it is, and sadder yet, your choice of moniker. By calling yourself "Mr Canada" you have and continue to besmirch the name of the country I love and call home.

Take a deep breath and think about it, PR! Remember that when things don't appear to make sense it is often because of premises flawed in the first place.

Does a poster seem inconsistent in his arguments? Does it get frustrating trying to debate him because of it?

Initial premise: the poster is trying to consistently take the same stand with his arguments.

What appears to be happening here is that one poster is having a great deal of fun getting large numbers of people to interact with him. THAT is his true goal!

He may justify it saying he's a champion of conservative thought but again, there are at least two false premises. First, he doesn't argue in the style of conservative thought! He argues like an evangelical, in a religious rather than a philosophical vein. Religious evangelicalism is not a political philosophy. It is a faith rather than reason belief system that has often tried to ride on the coat-tails of conservatism for a free ride to some sort of advancement. By itself it only appeals to a tiny portion of the population.

Second, why come to a board with a strong conservative presence to 'rile up the lefties' and advance the cause of conservatism? Talk about preaching to the choir! Why not spend your time on 'rubble.com' instead?

No my friends, what we have here would seem to be simply another troll. Energetic and articulate but a troll nonetheless. He's simply posting as he does because he's having a great deal of fun with all the attention he's been getting!

As long as he doesn't actually seriously break the rules we can't really expect him to be banned. If he's civil he has as much right as anyone else to make posts. However, most of us get bored with trolls after a while. Nothing says that any individual MUST participate!

Me, I had him on 'ignore' for months but there were so many posts made and so many quotes showing in other posts that it seemed futile. So I tried to work with reason but reason can't compete with entertainment, I guess.

So, for myself I will go back to my 'ignore' list and try not to waste my time anymore. I may disagree with many other members but I usually find them sincere! They challenge me to defend my opinions and often assist my 'edification'! I don't feel used as if I'm someone's pseudo-debating toy.

Others may do as they wish. Me, I'm not playing anymore!

[Argus]

What a strange topic shift, from skinny girls to immigration and revolution.

Okay, suppose we do this, we change immigration so that ony pretty girls can immigrate to Canada! And, they can't be too skinny, and would get extra points if they have nice boobs like Kim Kardashian.

I think I could bring myself to support the large numbers of immigrants we get if this were done.

And yes, I am a sexist pig.

[Wild Bill]

What a strange topic shift, from skinny girls to immigration and revolution.

Okay, suppose we do this, we change immigration so that ony pretty girls can immigrate to Canada! And, they can't be too skinny, and would get extra points if they have nice boobs like Kim Kardashian.

I think I could bring myself to support the large numbers of immigrants we get if this were done.

And yes, I am a sexist pig.

I suppose I am as well, Argus. At least as defined by some. I never knew I was a racist until some of the Six Nations supporters on this board made it obvious that if I disagreed with them on any point I must be, by definition!

I will admit that I was a faithful reader of the Toronto Sun from the first day of its debut till the early 90's. I don't think I ever missed an issue. Then their editorial board bowed to politically correct pressures and toned down the Sunshine Girl. They no longer were the type of models that attracted me. They seemed more like models chosen by a committee of women to be acceptable for their son's lockers!

When the National Post came out they 'stole' some of my favourite Sun columnists. That was the last straw. I quit buying the Sun and went for the Post instead.

Does that make me a sexist pig? I make no apologies.

[RB]

It makes much business sense and dollars to promote thin models e.g. size 0 especially if an average Canadian population is say size 10-12.

I say this because the beauty model presents a standard where a whole lot of women are presented with a whole lot of body weight issues and a good chuck of the female population feel bad of the way they look.

Look, now if I take a size 10 model - every person becomes a standard and there is no marketplace to trade beauty, a lot of men will become ruined and out of business. Men and their ruined lives can't be promoted.

What I mean is the size 10 female becomes a parallel of men defining beauty for men: A standard pot belly chap, no lip stick, no nylons, no high heels, sagging with over-sized fitted Walmart t-shirt, hairy one walks about with no body issues

There is no market for beauty for the average person.

[Wild Bill]

It makes much business sense and dollars to promote thin models e.g. size 0 especially if an average Canadian population is say size 10-12.

I say this because the beauty model presents a standard where a whole lot of women are presented with a whole lot of body weight issues and a good chuck of the female population feel bad of the way they look.

Look, now if I take a size 10 model - every person becomes a standard and there is no marketplace to trade beauty, a lot of men will become ruined and out of business. Men and their ruined lives can't be promoted.

What I mean is the size 10 female becomes a parallel of men defining beauty for men: A standard pot belly chap, no lip stick, no nylons, no high heels, sagging with over-sized fitted Walmart t-shirt, hairy one walks about with no body issues

There is no market for beauty for the average person.

Well, although beauty is a subjective term we do seem to be hardwired by our evolution to find certain physical characteristics to be attractive. These seem to be generated by evoking impressions of health and fertility, which only makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.

By that logic, I would submit that the past few decades have been an aberration. We have been presented with body sizes that are often on the verge of emaciation!

Marilyn Munroe would never have been accepted as a modern model. She was a few dress sizes too big! Mae West would also have been rejected. She had breasts!

I for one am not convinced that the modern fashion industry has been interested in making women appealing to men. Rather, it has been driven by those who aren't interested in women sexually anyway!

Smaller sizes save material, increasing profits. Remove the yardstick of sexual appeal and you then can use other more arbitrary yardsticks. A designer can win power and respect by political methods within his or her peer group, never having to face the test of genuine popular appeal. The market never gets the choices it actually wants so all kinds of games can be played!

Sounds like Canadian politics, doesn't it?

While I don't condone the industry I do feel that strip clubs have always recognized what fashion truly appeals to the male animal. They take it to an extreme but the costumes in which the dancer begins her act are artfully contrived to immediately attract the male interest.

How many runway skinny waifs could be successful as strippers? I'm not suggesting that should be their goal but we have to recognize that the very purpose of fashion is to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex. Just who have modern designers had as their target with these models?

By the standards of health and symmetry, is a scrawny breastless waif who looks like she has been surviving on coke and whatever her bulemia has left in her stomach truly what attracts a man? Just who is the industry trying to attract?

[PocketRocket]

I loved the Canada pre 1964 when out true flag flew in Ottawa and not this Liberal rag we have now.

..........

However Canada is too far gone for that I'm afraid.

So our flag, the banner of our nation, is a "Liberal Rag"???

Nice. "We stand on guard for thee", indeed.

Fine comments from a native son.

So Canada is "too far gone"???

Too bad you weren't........gone, that is.

[Topaz]

Most of those models could gain at least 20 lbs and still look good and the clothes would look even better! Society keeps telling everyone stay thin for good health but I known people who started out dieting and ended up dead from a rare cancer. This person only needed to lose at the most 10-15 lbs, but she over did it and she did look sick and she tried to get her hubby to do the diet but he refused. I feel she omitted the foods that helps keep the radicals that create cancer cells to spread. The fashion industry should change their rules for the models.

[Oleg Bach]

Nothing more silly than sitting and having a thanks giving dinner with a very hot babe - who eats two plates of food and disappears into the bathroom to purge...Or there is nothing more silly than seeing a jogger in the distance who as they get closer look like they have ten foot legs made our of used toilet paper rolls....OR nothing pisses me off more than a couple of gay males telling a woman how to be beautiful as they sit quietly thinking how much they hate females...but on the exteriour smile as the extremist gay rats destroy our finest females - and the idots listen to these thing men.

[kimmy]

So girls can get back to agonizing that their breasts aren't big enough? What a relief!

Kim Kardashian is most known for her big round behind, not her breasts. She has those as well, but she's got soft curves everywhere. Wide hips, round shoulders, curvy legs, and a very attainable looking waistline, all smoothed out by a realistic amount of body fat. She's not fat, of course, but neither does she have the sort of body that girls would have to starve themselves to emulate.

When my friends and I were concerned about boobs, we bought handweights, lay on our backs, and did butterflies, thinking that chest muscles would help create the appearance of size and make things stand out a little more. It would be just terrible if Kim Kardashian inspired a generation of girls to go out and get handweights...

Girls will always be worried about some aspect of their appearance (and so will guys, I bet) and all things considered, I think having normal-sized girls worried about their boobs is probably safer than having normal-sized girls thinking they need to lose 20 pounds to be attractive. Overall, I think that yeah, women like Kim Kardashian or Jennifer Lopez are much better images for girls than Kate Moss and whatever unusually thin women the fashion industry is promoting at the moment.

If the models are the problem, then the solution, as I see it, is simple. Consumer-driven objection.

As long as the population at large buys the products/magazines/etc which are using these malnourished waifs as promotional tools, the trend will continue unchanged.

Indeed... but, what consumers? What products? As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand what the target audience/target consumer for this stuff actually is. Whoever the fashion industry is trying to reach with these fashion shows about thin models and weird clothes, it doesn't seem to bear any relationship at all to what people actually buy, or what they actually find appealing. Or, as Wild Bill expands on the subject:

By that logic, I would submit that the past few decades have been an aberration. We have been presented with body sizes that are often on the verge of emaciation!

Marilyn Munroe would never have been accepted as a modern model. She was a few dress sizes too big! Mae West would also have been rejected. She had breasts!

I for one am not convinced that the modern fashion industry has been interested in making women appealing to men. Rather, it has been driven by those who aren't interested in women sexually anyway!

(...)

While I don't condone the industry I do feel that strip clubs have always recognized what fashion truly appeals to the male animal. They take it to an extreme but the costumes in which the dancer begins her act are artfully contrived to immediately attract the male interest.

How many runway skinny waifs could be successful as strippers? I'm not suggesting that should be their goal but we have to recognize that the very purpose of fashion is to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex. Just who have modern designers had as their target with these models?

By the standards of health and symmetry, is a scrawny breastless waif who looks like she has been surviving on coke and whatever her bulemia has left in her stomach truly what attracts a man? Just who is the industry trying to attract?

It seems to me that the strippers and the pornography industry probably have a pretty good idea what men find sexually appealing, and for the most part it seems like what men generally find interesting is *not* represented by the sort of androgynous stick-thin models that fashion-shows seem to employ.

I remain puzzled as to who they're trying to reach and what they're actually selling. It seems to me like there's a huge disconnect between the "fashion world" and the real marketplace.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

Any man who seeks out huge boobs and is fixated on them needs a mother not a mate.

[PocketRocket]

KIMMY: I hadn't realized how much I missed you wry wit until I got back here a couple days ago.

One point that had been repeatedly raised is the emaciated state of runway models.

I don't really see THOSE models as the problem, though.

Most teenage girls are not going to high-profile fashion shows, but rather seeing magazine models. Not much difference, but some.

Nonetheless, most models in mags, on covers, etc, are still quite thin.

Bottom line is that as long as there is a market for these rags, and they continue to sell, the publishers will find no reason to change their formula.

I'm trying to recall the women's magazine that a few years back said it wasn't going to do this anymore; promoting the unrealistically-thin body image.

And yet, some months later, upon glancing through one of these in my workplace, every advertisement showing a woman (aside from Reitman's ads) were using very thin models.

I guess it's easy to talk the talk....

Beyond all this, though, is a point raised earlier in this thread (I do not recall the author, and my apologies for that) that a good parent should be able to teach their kids that images seen in the media are in no way related to reality. Blaming the fashion industry for anorexia is kind of like blaming Ozzy Osbourne for teen suicide rates. Yeah, he wrote "Suicide Solution", but if a kid is so screwed up, with no real logical frame of reference that he offs himself because of something he heard in a song, then it's highly likely that if that song had not come along, then something else would have triggered him later.

In a related issue, and one which may make me seem hypocritical, is a concern over the effect of gangsta rap. The rap itself, I do not see as dangerous, although it is sometimes disturbing.

The real issue is the idolization of the gang culture.

Whatever happened to the old heros; Cowboys, police, Soldiers, Firemen, hell, even Batman and Robin??? What the hell happened that our kids are idolizing these new goons, and prestige is based on how many bullet or knife wounds these losers have???

Sorry, I did digress in a big way. Long day at work, and being over-tired tends to make me wander a tad....

[PocketRocket]

Take a deep breath and think about it, PR! Remember that when things don't appear to make sense it is often because of premises flawed in the first place.

Does a poster seem inconsistent in his arguments? Does it get frustrating trying to debate him because of it?

Initial premise: the poster is trying to consistently take the same stand with his arguments.

What appears to be happening here is that one poster is having a great deal of fun getting large numbers of people to interact with him. THAT is his true goal!

Heya Wild Bill. Thanks for the info.

I'm not sure, however, that he's a simple troll. Simple, yes. Troll?? I think most trolls are more inflammatory and less willing to at least TRY to use reason.

While his attempt are poor, and often self-contradictory, I do believe the man in sincere, in his own. narrow-minded way.

But then again, I'm just back from an approximate 3-year absence, so he, and many others here, are new to me.

We'll see how long it takes me to get fed up this time......

Cheers!!!

[PocketRocket]

Any man who seeks out huge boobs and is fixated on them needs a mother not a mate.

Or perhaps a motherly mate

I like boobs. Any size, but not any shape. But as long as they are not super-saggy, I am quite happy making them my playground.

Yes, I too am a pig

But an honest one.

Apologies to any ladies who may be offended by that.

EDITED TO ADD: Forgot to mention, I have a strong revulsion to the taste (and the entire idea) of plastic, so surgically-stuffed boobies do not do it for me.

Au natural.......always good.

Edited October 14, 2009 by PocketRocket

[kimmy]

KIMMY: I hadn't realized how much I missed you wry wit until I got back here a couple days ago.

aw!

One point that had been repeatedly raised is the emaciated state of runway models.

I don't really see THOSE models as the problem, though.

Most teenage girls are not going to high-profile fashion shows, but rather seeing magazine models. Not much difference, but some.

Nonetheless, most models in mags, on covers, etc, are still quite thin.

Valid point... the Cosmo girl with the 22" waist and 42" breasts is probably the real worry.

Bottom line is that as long as there is a market for these rags, and they continue to sell, the publishers will find no reason to change their formula.

I'm trying to recall the women's magazine that a few years back said it wasn't going to do this anymore; promoting the unrealistically-thin body image.

And yet, some months later, upon glancing through one of these in my workplace, every advertisement showing a woman (aside from Reitman's ads) were using very thin models.

I guess it's easy to talk the talk....

A while back on this board, someone mentioned the Dove "Real Beauty" advertisements, featuring "normal-looking" models... women of a variety of shapes and sizes hanging around in their underwear.

Which is fine... but Dove's parent company is Unilever, which is also the parent company of other brands like Axe, purveyors of some of the most sexist ads I can recall. So really, you have to question their sincerity.

Beyond all this, though, is a point raised earlier in this thread (I do not recall the author, and my apologies for that) that a good parent should be able to teach their kids that images seen in the media are in no way related to reality. Blaming the fashion industry for anorexia is kind of like blaming Ozzy Osbourne for teen suicide rates. Yeah, he wrote "Suicide Solution", but if a kid is so screwed up, with no real logical frame of reference that he offs himself because of something he heard in a song, then it's highly likely that if that song had not come along, then something else would have triggered him later.

Parents tell their kids all kinds of stuff that isn't really true, and kids know it more often than not. Hearing from mom and dad that she's still beautiful even if she's tubby is going to be of small comfort to a girl when all the images she sees and all the kids around her are telling her the opposite.

In a related issue, and one which may make me seem hypocritical, is a concern over the effect of gangsta rap. The rap itself, I do not see as dangerous, although it is sometimes disturbing.

The real issue is the idolization of the gang culture.

Whatever happened to the old heros; Cowboys, police, Soldiers, Firemen, hell, even Batman and Robin??? What the hell happened that our kids are idolizing these new goons, and prestige is based on how many bullet or knife wounds these losers have???

Or how sales of Kobe Bryant's merchandise *improved* after he was accused of rape?

Interesting topic, but one for another thread.

-k

[PocketRocket]

aw!

Valid point... the Cosmo girl with the 22" waist and 42" breasts is probably the real worry.

Yes, and can you arrange for me to meet her....please???

A while back on this board, someone mentioned the Dove "Real Beauty" advertisements, featuring "normal-looking" models... women of a variety of shapes and sizes hanging around in their underwear.

Which is fine... but Dove's parent company is Unilever, which is also the parent company of other brands like Axe, purveyors of some of the most sexist ads I can recall. So really, you have to question their sincerity.

It's all about sales, sales, sales. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but it does have it's downsides.

Parents tell their kids all kinds of stuff that isn't really true, and kids know it more often than not. Hearing from mom and dad that she's still beautiful even if she's tubby is going to be of small comfort to a girl when all the images she sees and all the kids around her are telling her the opposite.

You're right, and in many ways kids are smarter than we give them credit for. But there's a difference between snow-jobbing the kid and actually sitting down and educating them regarding genetics and their influence on our appearance, healthy eating, etc etc.

Interesting topic, but one for another thread.

-k

True, which is why I appended the offending rant with.......

Sorry, I did digress in a big way. Long day at work, and being over-tired tends to make me wander a tad....

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Woolf? It was published in the early 90s and addresses exactly this issue.

[Moonlight Graham]

If i ever have a daughter they will never be allowed to read one of those horrible women's fashion/lifestyle magazines in my house, ie: Cosmo and whatever. I've looked at them a few times and was disgusted with both the images but more importantly the articles. Its no wonder so many girls have eating disorders.

I once had a friend who had an eating disorder and she read these mags. They make me sick.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[lictor616]

If i ever have a daughter they will never be allowed to read one of those horrible women's fashion/lifestyle magazines in my house, ie: Cosmo and whatever. I've looked at them a few times and was disgusted with both the images but more importantly the articles. Its no wonder so many girls have eating disorders.

I once had a friend who had an eating disorder and she read these mags. They make me sick.

wow go graham! you just go!

awesome...

aren't you a firecracker of a future dad! wow!

Edited October 24, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest American Woman]

If i ever have a daughter they will never be allowed to read one of those horrible women's fashion/lifestyle magazines in my house, ie: Cosmo and whatever. I've looked at them a few times and was disgusted with both the images but more importantly the articles. Its no wonder so many girls have eating disorders.

I once had a friend who had an eating disorder and she read these mags. They make me sick.

Are you going to forbid her from watching television, too? And from going to the movies? And from listening to pop music stars?

And forbid her from being around her peers?

If you think Cosmo is the reason kids have eating disorders, you have a lot to learn before you have a daughter; and I'm not saying that to insult you, just as a statement of fact.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Playboy?

Edited October 24, 2009 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Playboy?

I hope Moonlight doesn't let his daughter read Playboy until she's at least 14.

-k

{I read it for the articles.}