Moving towards equality, but in the wrong direction

Via You’re Reading Too Much Into It, The New York Times reports on a new trend: super-skinny male models.

Where the masculine ideal of as recently as 2000 was a buff 6-footer with six-pack abs, the man of the moment is an urchin, a wraith or an underfed runt. [...]

Wasn’t it just a short time ago that the industry was up in arms about skinny models? [...] The models in question were women, and it’s safe to say that they remain as waiflike as ever. But something occurred while no one was looking. Somebody shrunk the men.

“Skinny, skinny, skinny,” said Dave Fothergill, a director of the agency of the moment, Red Model Management. “Everybody’s shrinking themselves.”

The new male model is supposed to look younger, pubescent, rather than adult; and like with female models, that means casting them young and skinny.

It is disturbing that this is happening. I’d much rather see female models get more latitude; this is moving towards equality in the wrong direction.

The article makes a couple of “this was a big deal when women were thin, but no one cares that the men are now expected to be thin” comments. (“Far from inspiring a spate of industry breast-beating, as occurred after the international news media got hold of the deaths of two young female models who died from eating disorders, the trend favoring very skinny male models has been accepted as a matter or course.”)

The article should have pointed out that male models are still allowed to carry a lot more weight, proportionately, than female models. Which is probably why we haven’t yet had any young male models die of heart attacks (although if the thin trend continues, probably that will happen, alas).

According to the article, “Stas Svetlichnyy of Russia typified the new norm… about 145 pounds. He is 6 feet tall with a 28-inch waist.” Later, a booking agent says that a male model who is 6 foot one should weigh 155. Both of those work out to a BMI of 20, which is officially categorized as “normal” weight. But a BMI of 20 would probably make a female model unemployable:

Many suspect that some of the world’s top models, from Kate Moss to Jacquetta Wheeler, will be banned if a cut off BMI of 18 in enforced. [...] The average runway model is estimated to be 5 feet 9 inches tall and to weigh in at 110 lbs.– resulting in a BMI of just 16, according to the British newspaper the Evening Standard.

According to the standard BMI categorization, BMIs under 18.5 are “underweight.” That doesn’t make what’s being done to the male models acceptable. But for people who aren’t naturally superthin, trying to maintain a BMI of 20 probably isn’t as unhealthy as trying to maintain a BMI of 16.

Finally, the article’s language sometimes seemed to suggest that thin male models aren’t male. Not everyone will see it, but comments like “underfed runt” and “chicken-chested” feel loaded with sexism, implying that the models are not only thin but also inadequate as men.

This entry posted in Fat, fat and more fat, Feminism, sexism, etc, Sexism hurts men. Bookmark the permalink. 

32 Responses to Moving towards equality, but in the wrong direction

  1. 1
    Tanglethis says:

    I see your point, but I’d hesitate to use even “the wrong kind of equality” here. I feel like the only way to measure men and women by equal beauty standards is to not measure them by beauty standards at all – since, as you point out here, measuring them by the “same” standards isn’t quite the same at all. Women who are thin for fashion’s sake are doing what they are supposed to do; men who are thin for fashion’s sake are avant-garde or, less charitably, un-men (as the cited article suggests)… where, again, women are expected to be fragile, but childlikeness (in appearance if not behavior) is antithetical to masculinity.

    But even if the standards were equal, attaining model-thinness would require the leisure to intentionally under-nourish (since for many of us, not getting enough to eat wrecks our job performance) as well as the genetic inclination to tall and thin… still not something men or women could equally aspire to.

    I know the flawedness of the “equality” here was part of your point, I’m just ruminating.

  2. 2
    chingona says:

    The article makes a couple of “this was a big deal when women were thin, but no one cares that the men are now expected to be thin” comments. (”Far from inspiring a spate of industry breast-beating, as occurred after the international news media got hold of the deaths of two young female models who died from eating disorders, the trend favoring very skinny male models has been accepted as a matter or course.”)

    I was never under the impression there was much breast-beating about the thin women until a few of them died and people outside the industry started asking WTF?

    The denigrating of these men’s bodies strikes me as similar to the way the women’s bodies were put down (they weren’t “real women,” they were skin-and-bones). It’s blaming the models themselves for the industry standard, when that standard obviously is created by who gets hired to show off the clothes. I blame skinny jeans.

  3. 3
    Kai Jones says:

    Heh, what about the poor designers? How can they possibly make teh fashion as art if they have to design around real bodies? Bodies that have three dimensions and everything!

  4. 4
    sqrrel says:

    So, chingona points out the problems with the labeling of thin people ‘fake’, and in the very next comment Kai Jones goes ahead and uses that trope.

    Classy.

    (disclosure: if we go by the BMI classifications, I am underweight and have been all my life. It doesn’t mean my body or my gender is false, and I’m really sick of that trope.)

  5. 5
    Kai Jones says:

    You’re absolutely right, and thanks for calling my attention to it. I apologize.

  6. 6
    RonF says:

    So what you’re saying here is that the fashion industry has decided that they’re going to stop making clothes for most men the way that they’ve decided to stop making clothes for most women?

    Someone needs to explain the fashion industry to me, because every time I watch clips of a fashion show nobody is wearing any clothing that anyone I know or have even seen ever wears.

    If you were to show me the above picture outside of the context of this thread or the runway he’s on I’d say that he’s wearing a particularly ill-fitting set of thermal underwear and is preparing for a hunting excursion. I’d recommend he get his money back and check out the current Cabela’s catalog.

  7. 7
    chingona says:

    a particularly ill-fitting set of thermal underwear

    Well, it’s way too low-cut for one thing. You want to keep your core warm, and that means crew neck. It’s not my most flattering look, either, but sometimes function must carry the day.

  8. 8
    Jake Squid says:

    My thought was that he was from a mid-’80s teen action adventure/comedy. He’s probably that evil, rich European or New Englander kid that our heroes must thwart.

  9. 9
    Mandolin says:

    Someone needs to explain the fashion industry to me, because every time I watch clips of a fashion show nobody is wearing any clothing that anyone I know or have even seen ever wears.

    OK. The difference between haute couture high fashion and what people wear is the same as the difference between highly prized, but very weird fine art, and what people put on their walls.

    It’s a specialized art form, not the presentation of what’s going to be sold in malls.

  10. 10
    Medea says:

    They give their imaginations free rein and go for innovation, and then they take the main elements of what they’ve created and tone them down to make wearable clothing. That way they get to have fun, sometimes even get political, and still sell stuff.

    Or, what Mandolin said.

  11. 11
    Stasek says:

    It is disturbing that this is happening. I’d much rather see female models get more latitude; this is moving towards equality in the wrong direction.

    Why do you think that a muscular standard affords male models more “lattitude” than a slender standard? Doesn’t it just mean that different people get hired, and face different demands to make changes to their bodies?

    After last month’s celebrations of the return of the beefcake (Daily Mail – follow the link if you want to learn why having a low-normal BMI is both “disgusting” and passé), I’m actually rather relieved to hear the skinny boys are holding their own in the fashion industry. On a personal level, it’s been a bit of a novelty to be able to find clothes that are made to flatter a body like mine, rather than to hide it. And if we must have culturally valorised body types at all, then it does strike me as a broadly good thing to have more than one per gender.

  12. 12
    PG says:

    Stasek,

    I think for the average person, it is healthier to carry some muscle rather than being very skin-and-bones thin. I never saw male models who looked Mr. Universe, steroid muscular; they generally looked like “hit the weights at the gym for an hour a day, eat the RDA of protein and very little fat” muscular.

    And if we must have culturally valorised body types at all, then it does strike me as a broadly good thing to have more than one per gender.

    If we must have the culturally valorized body types, I’d like for it to be the body that can do the widest range of activities: both men and women with sufficient muscle and endurance to heft large luggage up ten flights of stairs, for example. It doesn’t really make sense for “valorized” to include every body type. We don’t need to destroy beauty ideals; we need for people to feel less shame and unhappiness about not all being the ideal. The existence of geniuses and the valorization of a fairly narrow meaning of “intelligence” doesn’t seem to have the same impact on people.

  13. 13
    B. Adu says:

    This strikes me as ideology as opposed to equality.

    It’s about what Mandolin said, about art. The model’s bodies are not held up as ideals, they serve as canvass for the artistry of the designers.

    In this case; Hammer time!

  14. 14
    Nancy Lebovitz says:

    What bewilders me about fashion is that there doesn’t seem to be famous fashion that’s about clothing the average person wants to wear.

    In music, books, and movies, there’s avant garde and there’s a very lively mainstream, but there’s no fashion equivalent of Rowling.

  15. 15
    PG says:

    Nancy,

    Isn’t the clothing that the average well-off young person wears the equivalent of Rowling? For example, Target and H&M will have “collections” by runway designers, but they tend to be designers who produce accessible work even for the catwalk (see, e.g., Matthew Williamson). I think plenty of fashion is suitable for the average person, but it’s not necessarily made by the Alexander McQueen types who at this point are fairly far up their own butts.

  16. 16
    Elusis says:

    If we must have the culturally valorized body types, I’d like for it to be the body that can do the widest range of activities: both men and women with sufficient muscle and endurance to heft large luggage up ten flights of stairs, for example. It doesn’t really make sense for “valorized” to include every body type.

    PG -

    I’m really sad to read this comment, but I guess it puts your comments in the open thread re: United’s seat policy into context.

    I know very thin and very fat people who have “sufficient muscle and endurance to heft large luggage up ten flights of stairs,” and very mid-sized people who do not. Not that I have any idea what ten-flight luggage-hefting has to do with tasks that people regularly perform in this culture, given that ten-story buildings routinely have elevators (even if you prefer the stairs, using the elevator if you have heavy burdens to carry makes sense in terms of both preserving your back and avoiding damage to the burdens and stairs.) But if you look at the slide show of Olympic athletes, you’ll notice that the weight lifter weighs 300 pounds and has body fat of around 30%. She is an OLYMPIC ATHLETE but her body in no way conforms to the stereotype of “a fit woman.”

    I think we should valorize bodies, period, and not limit ourseves to “type,” particularly not to assumptions about what types of bodies can do what things. But then again, I know fat people who run marathons, even though the average person thinks I’m making up some type of fat unicorn when I mention it. And I know people whose bodies naturally put them in the “underweight” category, who constantly get intrusive questions about eating disorders and chemotherapy and etc., who are professional-level dancers (so no worries about their strength and endurance there).

    Bodies are awesome. The fashion industry is pure, unadulterated evil.

  17. 17
    sqrrel says:

    Kai: I’m a little late returning here, so I don’t know if you’ll see this, but thanks. I appreciate the apology.

  18. 18
    PG says:

    Elusis,

    When you can point out where in my comment I said that only people of certain girths, or weights, or whatever, can do the kind of task I was describing — or where I said that the United policy has anything to do with what I consider an ideal body type — that would be awesome. So far as I know, having huge muscular thighs might well create a problem in fitting into a very narrow seat with the armrests down, but it also would be very helpful in hefting heavy stuff up a lot of stairs. What creates a difficulty in one situation (fitting into a narrow seat) could be useful in an entirely different situation (hauling large suitcases up ten flights), and I don’t believe I’ve ever said otherwise. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that.

  19. 19
    Elusis says:

    PG – I quoted the part of your comment that I found problematic. If I’ve misinterpreted, please clarify, but understand that couching appreciation for bodies based on what they can do or a kind of “health” is usually a dog whistle approach to stigmatizing fat (and sometimes thin) people, based on assumptions that “if they are X, they must not be (able to do) Y.”

    Also, there are some fairly able-ist issues with definiing bodies’ worth based on their ability to perform various tasks that I would encourage you to think about.

  20. 20
    PG says:

    Elusis,

    I have no idea of what you mean by a body’s “worth.” The discussion is about the idealization of body types. I don’t much mind a cultural consensus that some types of bodies are more attractive than others, just as there’s a cultural consensus (fairly cross-culturally, in fact) that facial symmetry, i.e. being able to draw a vertical line down the center of a face and having the sides match closely, is more attractive than facial asymmetry. You may disagree and find all faces equally beautiful (at which point “beautiful” pretty much loses its meaning).

    You included ‘It doesn’t really make sense for “valorized” to include every body type’ as a part of my comment with which you had a problem. If you think there’s a reason why bodies ought to be treated differently than faces, or indeed if you believe that concepts of beauty simply should not be applied to human appearance, I’d would like to hear your thoughts. I really don’t like to hear people making misleading claims about my thoughts, which your remark @ 16 about “assumptions about what types of bodies can do what things” seemed to imply.

    All people qua people have equal worth. All bodies, as the physical aspect of personhood, have equal legal worth and should be treated the same inasmuch as they are similarly situated. I don’t think people should be condemned for ableist bigotry if they want their own bodies to be able to do more, or if they think a body that can do more is a more desirable body to have. As I stated (and I don’t know how to make this much clearer), If we must have the culturally valorized body types, I would like to valorize based on the body’s everyday capabilities, which at least can be objectively measured, rather than on the current fashion into which one squeezes with the use of surgery, starvation, etc. The former often contributes to improving the range of activities and lifestyles one can have (if I thought I could handle 10 flights of stairs, I could live in a much cheaper building with unreliable elevator service; I could handle five flights and thus got a good deal on a sublet that required me to haul up those stairs).

    understand that couching appreciation for bodies based on what they can do or a kind of “health” is usually a dog whistle approach to stigmatizing fat (and sometimes thin) people, based on assumptions that “if they are X, they must not be (able to do) Y.”

    Uh, OK, I just have not seen this before. Could you provide an example? Whenever I have seen stigmatization of bodies, it’s based on aesthetic preferences and/or assumptions about health, not the body’s abilities. The body’s abilities are pretty demonstrable, unlike health; and as I said they are relatively objective, unlike aesthetics. If someone stigmatizes a thin girl as having an eating disorder or being “bony,” she can’t really prove the negative or dispute a subjective aesthetic preference. If someone stigmatizes a thin girl as “can’t lift a lunch tray,” she can disprove that pretty easily.

  21. 21
    Elusis says:

    PG – you used the term “valorize,” which is a little formal, but a strict reading of it suggests a definition along the lines of “ascribing value to” or “setting a high price on.” Both imply the idea of worth (and if that’s not what you were getting at, I’d suggest trying to come at your premise from another direction?) Your comment can be read as suggesting that it doesn’t make sense for every body type to have some kind of high worth put on it (and indeed, this is the position of the mainstream culture in which North American/European people currently live, no doubt about it.)

    Personally, I disagree that we must, as a culture, value certain bodies over others. We do, but I don’t believe we must. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having ideas about attractiveness/beauty, but it does challenge the notion that beauty is prescriptive, limited, and widely agreed upon. I have certain things to which I am attracted, certain things that tend to bore me or repulse me, and a whole lot of areas in between, but I don’t necessarily believe that the world’s problems would be solved if only they replaced the fashion industry’s definition of “attractive” with mine. But I disagree that we have to establish some kind of standard about “attractiveness” in order to decide who should wear clothing for the fashion industry, because although we associate the two, there is nothing inalienable about that association. In fact, I’m convinced that it is possible to put fashion on anyone and, with the right choice of clothing and styling, someone (many someones, in fact) would find the results appealing in some way. But what we have now is an industry in which a very narrow range of people are clothed and styled for public consumption, an approach that 1) “valorizes” (to use your word) only a very small number of people, and 2) fails to appeal to, or even actively turns off, many people.

    I believe it’s possible to have a fashion industry that isn’t predicated on a narrow definition of what bodies deserve to be looked at. When I think about the physically-diverse cast of a Mark Morris dance piece, or the Cirque du Soleil show “Zumanity,” or the many contemporary burlesque troupes that have diverse performers, I am floored by how beautiful people can look in clothes even if they are very tall or short, very thin or fat, any one of a hundred skin tones, wrinkled with age, or changed by injury or genetics. I have seen my co-worker, pretzeled up in her electric wheelchair, look beautiful enough to be in a magazine. I have seen women twice my size take the stage in an ensemble and captivate a crowd. Clothes do not have to demand certain bodies on which to feature them; it is a quirk of our fashion industry that we have allowed to become an assumed norm.

    And transferring the hierarchy of privilege from “having a certain appearance” to “having a certain ability” doesn’t improve matters any, as it still facilitates the dividing of the world into the elites and the wanna-bes in a way that is utterly arbitrary (I still fail to see what carrying suitcases has to do with being the canvas for fashion?) and guarantees that most people will feel they fall short.

    If you’ve really been insulated from the “oh, I’m just worried about your health!” and “wouldn’t you like to be able to do activities like a normal person? then you should lose weight!” dog whistles, then I envy you. They exist, just like racist dog whistles do. And the more size positive advocates have urged resisting the “one body type fits all” mentality, the more urgent the “we just want you to be HEALTHY!” pressures have become as the diet and fashion industries feel themselves losing ground (because heaven knows being satisfied with yourself doesn’t sell products).

    (And even if they were sincere, the calls to change from a focus on size to a focus on health are still able-ist, because there are plenty of people at all sizes who could not [lug those suitcases, walk a runway with ease, jaunt around Paris] and whose bodies still deserve to be valorized because bodies are pretty darn near miraculous even when they are refusing to behave within “normal” parameters.)

  22. 22
    PG says:

    Elusis,

    I didn’t originate the use of “valorized” in this thread; I was quoting Stasek @ 11 and putting forward a different view of what, if we are going to have bodies judged, would in my view be a better basis for judgment. I specifically said, “Whenever I have seen stigmatization of bodies, it’s based on aesthetic preferences and/or assumptions about health,” yet you reply “If you’ve really been insulated from the ‘oh, I’m just worried about your health!’…”

    I didn’t at any point relate my capability-based preference to fashion models specifically, just to a general conception of worthwhile goals for a body, yet you reply with three paragraphs about bodies’ relationship to clothes and the fashion industry and say, “I still fail to see what carrying suitcases has to do with being the canvas for fashion?” I didn’t say it did, and I find it incredibly frustrating that you’re having a conversation with someone other than me while pretending to address me.

    There isn’t much point in have a conversation if you are going to ignore what I say. When I ask for an example of “if they are X, they must not be (able to do) Y” kind of thinking that you claim is so widespread that I should be conscious that referring to capabilities is a “dog whistle” for sizism, you refer to a post that says if someone wants to become thinner for a trip to Paris, that’s necessarily implying that not-thin people can’t go to Paris. (Which, if one looks at the American tourists in Paris, including myself, is obviously absurd; it’s like saying that if a bridal magazine offers “tips on buffing up your arms for the Big Day,” the magazine is endorsing the idea that women who don’t work out before their wedding are incapable of getting married.)

    When I request, If you think there’s a reason why bodies ought to be treated differently than faces, or indeed if you believe that concepts of beauty simply should not be applied to human appearance, I’d would like to hear your thoughts, you ignore that in favor of talking about the fashion industry.

    I don’t think you are engaging with what I have been saying, but instead are overlaying what you think of me, based on another thread, into this discussion.

  23. 23
    A.W. says:

    Elusis – “understand that couching appreciation for bodies based on what they can do or a kind of “health” is usually a dog whistle approach to stigmatizing fat (and sometimes thin) people, based on assumptions that “if they are X, they must not be (able to do) Y.”

    PG – “Uh, OK, I just have not seen this before. Could you provide an example? Whenever I have seen stigmatization of bodies, it’s based on aesthetic preferences and/or assumptions about health, not the body’s abilities. The body’s abilities are pretty demonstrable, unlike health;”

    Health is generally assumed by what you look like, and when you look to be in ‘good health’ (rosy cheaks, thinish, no visible disabilities), people then assume able-body/able mind. Sad but true.

    You asked for examples, here’s a few – heavy runners in a marathon and/or amputees in a marathon (why, I imagine, they’re always used as ‘inspiring’ stories), that 300 pd woman who was(is? I ran across the story searching for something else the day before, don’t remember her name) an olympic athlete for, I think, wight lifting. Gimmie a bit I can dig up more. Fat and/or disabled tends to = unable, ‘least in the us, or I imagine such… “Lookit that, Bob!” wouldn’ be popular. Other athletes don’t get that particular brand of -ism, as they look ‘able’ and ‘healthy’.

    PG – “If someone stigmatizes a thin girl as “can’t lift a lunch tray,” she can disprove that pretty easily.”

    A body’s abilities, by the way, are not always easily demonstratable – they’re also subject to change or only affect particular tasks, and not consistently at that. You shouldn’t have to demonstrate on a whim (and you – do – often end up demonstrating, if only by going about your daily activities in their sight) and people often ‘forget’ what you can do because you’re either pegged as Looking Fine or Not Up to Par.

    What’s ‘easily demonstratable’ is often linked to – what you look like you can do -, people assume shit and treat you accordingly. Performing on Demand (having a bit of trouble believing you said that as if it was reasonable) may also mean you’re putting in one hell of an effort if you can’t do something at a particular time, and if you can’t do it at that time they base it on what they think is wrong with you. In this case, weight. “Lose some weight!” seems to be a universal answer in the usa when having damn near any disability. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard it from family for sporadic back problems, (most of my friends know better) and I ain’t much heavier than I used to be.

    B’sides, if’n you can do what task is suggested to ‘prove yourself able’, you’re either ‘insporational’ or a liar two-to-five seconds after they convienently forget what you’re capable of, because there’s an invisible, general list of Shit You Shouldn’t Be Able To Do When You’re —–. That, too, happens with disability.

  24. 24
    PG says:

    Performing on Demand (having a bit of trouble believing you said that as if it was reasonable) may also mean you’re putting in one hell of an effort if you can’t do something at a particular time, and if you can’t do it at that time they base it on what they think is wrong with you.

    I didn’t say that people should feel obliged to perform on demand; I was pointing out that capability is much more easily demonstrable than health or aesthetics. I can’t prove that you should find me attractive. I don’t carry lab results documenting my blood pressure, cholesterol level, etc. However, at any given moment I can demonstrate that I’m capable of running up a flight of stairs. Should I feel obliged to do it if someone is saying that I can’t? Of course not. But there’s nonetheless a meaningful difference here. It’s a lot faster to show someone that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about with a demonstration (“watch me go up these stairs, then”) than with a long argument about the evils of making assumptions. It’s more likely to prevent that person from feeling comfortable stating such an assumption in the future, where he might again have to face the embarassment of being completely shown up as an ignoramus.

    I have found this to be true in my experiences as a woman as well: “girls can’t do that!” is often better answered by going ahead and doing it than by arguing on a wholly abstract level why gender is irrelevant. (And even if a given woman can’t do that, having the example of the other women easily to hand makes the point almost as well.) I think we have seen much more progress against sexism in our society by women’s showing what they can do than by their attempting to explain, especially to people who don’t think well at an abstract level, why sex-based assumptions are erroneous.

  25. 25
    Elusis says:

    PG – I’m sorry that we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I feel like I’m directly addressing things you’ve written here and providing examples of what you’re asking for, and you feel like I’m not. I feel like I’m challenging points you’re making, and you feel differently. I’m not sure what else to do, but as I’m hitting the road later today, my best solution at this point is to respectfully disengage and hope perhaps someone else will come along to comment and have something insightful to say to both of us.

  26. Pingback: Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Skinny Male Models and Boy Scouts - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer

  27. 26
    Julia Sullivan says:

    PG, I think the point that folks are trying to make to you about this statement:

    If we must have the culturally valorized body types, I’d like for it to be the body that can do the widest range of activities

    is that it’s irrelevant to runway modeling, because runway modeling does not display anyone’s physical endurance, strength, or ability. The gentleman in the unusual outfit in the poster may be able to carry heavy luggage up a flight of stairs, or he may not be: the key thing is that we can’t tell that by looking at him.

  28. Pingback: [body impolitic] Skinny Male Models and Boy Scouts

  29. 27
    PG says:

    Julia,

    Yes, I realize it’s irrelevant to the super-specific, narrow realm of runway modeling, but I assumed Amp was talking about runway models in the first place because of how they affect our overall cultural ideals. I find it implausible that if runway model bodies were relevant solely for the people who want to get into that line of work, Amp would be taking that much of an interest.

  30. 28
    CassandraSays says:

    Honestly, I don’t see why this is any more unrealistic a body image than the super buffed one that it replaces. In fact some men are just naturally skinny, no men just naturally have defined pecs and 6 pack abs without in some way working at it.

    The tone of the piece you link to is pretty unpleasant actually, not exactly body positive. It’s all very “this is threatening my heteronornative assumptions that men are big and women are little, stop it, it’s making me feel wierd”. The whole reaction feels sort of saturated in male privilege actually – when fashion demands that women be super thin that’s just the way things are, but when it demands that men be thin that’s just not acceptable.

    (Not Amp’s reaction, I mean the reaction towards the increasing trend for skinny male models in general)

  31. 29
    Yasmin says:

    when fashion demands that women be super thin that’s just the way things are, but when it demands that men be thin that’s just not acceptable.

    I have a problem with this right here, CassandraSays. Why is it that women are starving themselves till death to meet the expectations of the fashion industry, and thats “just the way things are” now it’s “just not acceptable” for that expectation to be considered for men as well??

    Women should most definitely NOT have to be of an abnormal size to model, and neither should men.

    The fashion industry should be concentrating more on “normal” sized people, because they are the majority of people, and not wasting time and money on these unreal models.

  32. 30
    BrightenedBoy says:

    I’ve definitely noticed this. I’m a 21-year-old male who’s 5’10″ and weighs about 125lbs. When I was growing up, I was made fun of all the time for being so thin, but now my guy friends are trying to achieve my body type.

    The standards have definitely changed.