Rik Austin wrote:
I heard it was in the works but didn't believe it would happen in France of all places.  As usual good intentions gone awry.  Every skinny model is going to turn into a pariah.

I could be wrong but I suspect the net result of this, will simply be that some, perhaps many French designers, agencies and models, will move to London or at least move the major part of their work and their showcase catwalk shows to London, especially given it's less than an hours train ride away.

That may not just be because of the law itself but also because they are so incensed at having it imposed on them. Honestly, I don't think legislation is the way to address this issue.

Rik Austin wrote:
I heard it was in the works but didn't believe it would happen in France of all places.  As usual good intentions gone awry.  Every skinny model is going to turn into a pariah.

Women living with anorexia are already being subjected to abuse.  And women who just have small bones and a natural amount of fat also hear it from jerks empowered by these campaigns.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I dont anywhere they have to start using size 12 models ?
Is going to Size 1-2 models instead of size 0 going to be such a big deal ?
I think the disclaimer in ads is the way it should be

As the recent Sports Illustrated cover showed, it's really easy to get super thin plus size models - just find a skinny 6'2" girl.

Maybe I don't understand skinny-shaming because I'm a dude, so it doesn't apply to me. I have a huge ass for a guy, and there's no male equivalent of Lane Bryant selling skinny jeans for guys with big asses - I just see those clothes as something that isn't meant for me.

But it would seem to me that requiring the use of "realistic" models and no Photoshop, etc. is going the opposite direction from what is actually healthy. It's one thing to compare yourself to something that you could never be - it's another thing to compare yourself to what you could be, but aren't. I don't feel bad about not looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan, or Brad Pitt in Snatch, because I understand that looking like that is a lifestyle, and I've chosen to do something else with my life. But t I do feel bad comparing myself to one of the guys at work, who has basically the same lifestyle as I do, and is older than me, but is in infinitely better physical shape.

Add on the discrepancies between height and size, and next thing you know women are drawing much worse comparisons about themselves than when they were looking at 18 year old girls with killer metabolisms and personal trainers.

But again, I'm a dude. I'm probably not looking at the issue the right way.

Jason Haven wrote:
BMI is such a stupid measurement. Someone could look really thin with a healthy BMI because they have loads of lean muscle. Someone could appear really fit, but be "obese" due to loads of muscle. Someone could appear relatively thin, but average, and have a really low BMI, due to severe lack of muscle. BMI is dumb.

It's been a long time since I was a gym rat. But at one point I had about a 12% measured body fat, wasn't even close to having a six pack(I had four!), and my BMI said I was about ten pounds shy of obesity.

I've lost lots of muscle, but only weigh a few pounds more. Which means that even though my body fat is probably around 16%, I'm still in the same shape by the BMI chart.

Art Silva wrote:
In the real world it makes sense. How many women looking to buy these fashions can actually fit in these as they are presented and look on the runway? Im willing to bet Not Many.

Rather than discriminating against the models based on their body size/shape....

Perhaps they should be regulating the sizes/measurements that the designers are permitted to feature, for example, if garments must be for a size 2 or size 4 (and specify what that means in terms of measurements), would they still want to cast a size 00 rail-thin model or would they want to cast the person who makes the garment look the best.

It is not like this is such a new thing, remember when flight attendants not only needed to be thin, pretty, and female, but they also NEEDED to be unmarried, and that was company policy for airlines.

The problem is not with the models, it is a combination of the designers and the agencies trying to pressure for thinner and thinner, so rather than discriminating against models, regulate the garment size, NOT legislate that it would literally be illegal to hire skinny people because they are projecting an unhealthy image.


Maybe no transgendered people in advertising, because to some that send the wrong message too.  (Not in my opinion, just playing devils advocate there.)

If models are considering role models and things that people looking at magazines/advertising will aspire to be like, then maybe we need to legislate that obese people can't be teachers, since children look up to teachers also.

They may have good intentions, but the method and manner of trying to "fix" the "problem" is terrible.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Rather than discriminating against the models based on their body size/shape....

Perhaps they should be regulating the sizes/measurements that the designers are permitted to feature, for example, if garments must be for a size 2 or size 4 (and specify what that means in terms of measurements), would they still want to cast a size 00 rail-thin model or would they want to cast the person who makes the garment look the best.

It is not like this is such a new thing, remember when flight attendants not only needed to be thin, pretty, and female, but they also NEEDED to be unmarried, and that was company policy for airlines.

The problem is not with the models, it is a combination of the designers and the agencies trying to pressure for thinner and thinner, so rather than discriminating against models, regulate the garment size, NOT legislate that it would literally be illegal to hire skinny people because they are projecting an unhealthy image.


Maybe no transgendered people in advertising, because to some that send the wrong message too.  (Not in my opinion, just playing devils advocate there.)

If models are considering role models and things that people looking at magazines/advertising will aspire to be like, then maybe we need to legislate that obese people can't be teachers, since children look up to teachers also.

They may have good intentions, but the method and manner of trying to "fix" the "problem" is terrible.

It's not really fair to compare flight attendants to models. The flight attendants HAVE to fit down those tiny aisles. It was a lot of being practical. At one time I wanted to be a flight attendant. The applications were ridiculous. Do you have braces? What kind of braces? It's a fantasy, just as a model on a runway is a fantasy. I have a sister that is anorexic so I can see maybe France is actually trying to help women. Models are dying.

Isis22 wrote:
It's not really fair to compare flight attendants to models. The flight attendants HAVE to fit down those tiny aisles. It was a lot of being practical. At one time I wanted to be a flight attendant. The applications were ridiculous. Do you have braces? What kind of braces? It's a fantasy, just as a model on a runway is a fantasy. I have a sister that is anorexic so I can see maybe France is actually trying to help women. Models are dying.

Perhaps you missed my multiple references as to it being a past-tense situation.  I was talking about the 1960's.  (The "remember when", single, unmarried should have been a hint I was not referring to today.)

I've had many friends with eating disorders, this IS an issue that I am sensitive to, but legally discriminating against women based on their BMI is NOT the proper solution.

Did you see me say they are NOT trying to help?  Of course they think they are helping, but they are trying to treat the symptom, not the cause.

Yes, models are dying.  Skinny girls with eating disorders who are not models are dying.  Obese people are dying too.

What I am saying is this is not the proper solution to the problem, even though it is the solution we will probably get.  They need to go after the cause, not the effect/symptom, and not discriminate against healthy women who are naturally thin but don't measure up to a government set standard which only considers a frequently not accurate measure of health.

If they want to change the "sizes" in fashion/advertising they should legislate a minimum size/dress form for the garments, not the models.  If that is not enough, then the agencies should be liable if models have health problems which they induce/promote, but not something as sketchy as a minimum bmi.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Perhaps you missed my multiple references as to it being a past-tense situation.  I was talking about the 1960's.  (The "remember when", single, unmarried should have been a hint I was not referring to today.)

I've had many friends with eating disorders, this IS an issue that I am sensitive to, but legally discriminating against women based on their BMI is NOT the proper solution.

Did you see me say they are NOT trying to help?  Of course they think they are helping, but they are trying to treat the symptom, not the cause.

Yes, models are dying.  Skinny girls with eating disorders who are not models are dying.  Obese people are dying too.

What I am saying is this is not the proper solution to the problem, even though it is the solution we will probably get.  They need to go after the cause, not the effect/symptom, and not discriminate against healthy women who are naturally thin but don't measure up to a government set standard which only considers a frequently not accurate measure of health.

If they want to change the "sizes" in fashion/advertising they should legislate a minimum size/dress form for the garments, not the models.  If that is not enough, then the agencies should be liable if models have health problems which they induce/promote, but not something as sketchy as a minimum bmi.

Flight attendants TODAY still have to be a certain size.

This is the solution that has already been passed in France. Honestly there is not a thing we can do about it. I think it's a good step. As a model I see many, many models in print, on catwalks, on TV, etc that are anorexic. I don't hear photographers saying the same thing. It's rare for a model to be as naturally thin as they are. Did you read the first article the OP posted the link to? Did you see the accompanying pictures? The only way things will change is if the industry is forced to change. I will not that they have not even stated what BMI will be the cutoff point. As for those who claim muscle will skew the results show me a model that has so much muscle the BMI will be invalid.

- Phil H - wrote:
In a surprise move, French politicians passed into law, a ban on hiring or using excessively thin models who fall below an as yet unspecified BMI. Agencies, designers, etc who fail to observe this new law, face a fine of US $82k and up to six months in jail.

The politicians who put forward these laws apparently feel a healthier, more wholesome look to models should be encouraged within the French fashion industry.

This is so moronic... it's beyond the pale!

There is again the proof that politicians are out for votes out of personal interest and not for public health.

Among psychiatrists and clinical psychologists (like one of my best friends who is also a designer) it is known that the fashion industry has absolutely nothing to do with anorexia.

This psychological disorder has to do with control issues within a family, where the usually highly intelligent girl, with middle to upper class parents feels that she is not in control of her life, and the only thing she can control is her own body...

But... the media... and the fat constituents of the politicians fell into the trap of yellow press sensationalism and takes swift, but totally useless action against skinny girls!

I am so sick and tired of those people...

It's just like the two Spanish politicians who are both overweight (man and a woman), who set BMI standards for Madrid fashion week... which I still believe that this was a publicity stunt on many levels, including putting Madrid Fashion Week "on the calendar" because until then, most people didn't know that there was a Madrid FW...

Happy Ostara, everyone!


EDIT: Instead of demanding a moronic BMI (which was designed for livestock not humans), why don't they just get a physicians bill of health, to show that the model is healthy, independent from her weight appearance?!

Isis22 wrote:
Flight attendants TODAY still have to be a certain size. .

Right, so do firefighters.

That wasn't the point, even though it is the one you've keyed in on.

The point was all the other things I mentioned were because of marketing and what they thought were ascetic values (similar to designers and agencies role in modeling), and that is what this situation in modeling is about.

The problem is the designers and the agencies, yet this only punishes the models.

They need to fix the problem, not take those thought of as victims of this problem and make it even harder for them to earn a living, especially if they are just naturally thin and healthy rather than having an eating disorder.

This punishes the victims rather than fixes the problem.

Isis22 wrote:
Did you read the first article the OP posted the link to? Did you see the accompanying pictures? The only way things will change is if the industry is forced to change. I will not that they have not even stated what BMI will be the cutoff point. As for those who claim muscle will skew the results show me a model that has so much muscle the BMI will be invalid.

You've clearly totally missed the point that I did NOT say the industry should not change or should not be forced to change, what I said is that this is the wrong way to accomplish that change.

I read articles yesterday which stated the law that passed calls for a minimum BMI of 18 prior to being hired for the job and again after doing the job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/anore … in-n335091

I've seen pictures these for years, and it isn't my job to educate you on why BMI is full of fail, nor be "corrected" by you when apparently you're not even aware of what is the actual measure that was legislated.

Isis22 wrote:

Flight attendants TODAY still have to be a certain size.

This is the solution that has already been passed in France. Honestly there is not a thing we can do about it. I think it's a good step. As a model I see many, many models in print, on catwalks, on TV, etc that are anorexic. I don't hear photographers saying the same thing. It's rare for a model to be as naturally thin as they are. Did you read the first article the OP posted the link to? Did you see the accompanying pictures? The only way things will change is if the industry is forced to change. I will not that they have not even stated what BMI will be the cutoff point. As for those who claim muscle will skew the results show me a model that has so much muscle the BMI will be invalid.

From the linked BBC article:
"models would have to present a medical certificate showing a BMI - the ratio of height to weight - of at least 18 before being hired for a job.
The average BMI for a woman in France is said to be 23.2.

Doctors say a normal BMI for adults is between 18.5 and 24.9, but some critics say the measure is not the best way of judging a healthy weight."

Zack Zoll wrote:

As the recent Sports Illustrated cover showed, it's really easy to get super thin plus size models - just find a skinny 6'2" girl.

Maybe I don't understand skinny-shaming because I'm a dude, so it doesn't apply to me. I have a huge ass for a guy, and there's no male equivalent of Lane Bryant selling skinny jeans for guys with big asses - I just see those clothes as something that isn't meant for me.

But it would seem to me that requiring the use of "realistic" models and no Photoshop, etc. is going the opposite direction from what is actually healthy. It's one thing to compare yourself to something that you could never be - it's another thing to compare yourself to what you could be, but aren't. I don't feel bad about not looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan, or Brad Pitt in Snatch, because I understand that looking like that is a lifestyle, and I've chosen to do something else with my life. But t I do feel bad comparing myself to one of the guys at work, who has basically the same lifestyle as I do, and is older than me, but is in infinitely better physical shape.

Add on the discrepancies between height and size, and next thing you know women are drawing much worse comparisons about themselves than when they were looking at 18 year old girls with killer metabolisms and personal trainers.

But again, I'm a dude. I'm probably not looking at the issue the right way.

I agree, end slim shaming!

Jen B wrote:
Do we fire everyone that anyone else can point their finger to as being a part in their own issues??

Can we start with Congress?

Rik Austin wrote:
I heard it was in the works but didn't believe it would happen in France of all places.  As usual good intentions gone awry.  Every skinny model is going to turn into a pariah.

Nope, not so! Hit an In-an-Out, DD animal style, fries, chocolate shake, twice a week you'll be 125 plus in no time. The models will luv it, must eat to keep working.

Jen B wrote:
Wait a minute...

Claiming that a thin person is the reason someone else has a psychological disorder and so should loose work, livihood and be treated as a shamed creature is about as logical as claiming that anyone else is the reason another person has a psychological disorder.

Do we fire everyone that anyone else can point their finger to as being a part in their own issues??

Wrong.

I don't think we blame skinny PEOPLE. The way the conversations go, we usually blame the industry, and talk about skinny models like they're not even people. They're just product in that dialogue.

At least racists blame "the blacks", or " foreigners." It's no better, but at least it's honest. Complaining about people being too thin is usually done in such a way that one can turn around and say, "But not you, honey. It's not your fault - other people made you this way."

That is goddamn condescending.

Prolens Photography wrote:

Nope, not so! Hit an In-an-Out, DD animal style, fries, chocolate shake, twice a week you'll be 125 plus in no time. The models will luv it, must eat to keep working.

I can only speak from first perspective on my own history but, I took your advice basically from age 17-27 and I made it UP to 125!! However after that age I was an athlete and while I went on to weight a whopping 133, (nearly broke the bank for me to eat like the horse I had to in order to do that...) My BMI at the time was still under 17 when calculated for the team I was in. Now, I'm definitely a lot higher than that but, i had another 20 to keep working on it.

Just saying, your logic doesn't necessarily work. Besides eating to gain like that for me, was like a part time job and...bull.
Jen

m_s_photo wrote:
Do you suppose they'll be banning fat ones next?

No, morbid obesity is not as offensive as being skinny. To a dingbat, fool, waste of votes politician.

Prolens Photography wrote:
Nope, not so! Hit an In-an-Out, DD animal style, fries, chocolate shake, twice a week you'll be 125 plus in no time. The models will luv it, must eat to keep working.

Well...that would not work for me. My weight's always been well below 125 because of my bone structure and other factors, even when I've tried to gain weight. I became thinner after I got diabetes and simply can't gain that much weight in the way you describe (not only because I'm diabetic and have to stay "low carb" at all times, but because of how my metabolism works).

udor wrote:
EDIT: Instead of demanding a moronic BMI (which was designed for livestock not humans), why don't they just get a physicians bill of health, to show that the model is healthy, independent from her weight appearance?!

I like this idea, as I absolutely agree the BMI is not a reliable indicator of health relative to weight for humans, who vary widely in bone structure and other physiological features. I can get a note from my doctor at any time explaining my health status and in the shoes of a female model would be willing to do so.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I've had many friends with eating disorders, this IS an issue that I am sensitive to, but legally discriminating against women based on their BMI is NOT the proper solution.

I agree with you. In practice, it doesn't solve the problem; it just creates more issues. I'm also sure people will find ways to work around this policy (i.e., loopholes) as others have mentioned here.

Jen B wrote:
I can only speak from first perspective on my own history but, I took your advice basically from age 17-27 and I made it UP to 125!! However after that age I was an athlete and while I went on to weight a whopping 133, (nearly broke the bank for me to eat like the horse I had to in order to do that...) My BMI at the time was still under 17 when calculated for the team I was in. Now, I'm definitely a lot higher than that but, i had another 20 to keep working on it.

Just saying, your logic doesn't necessarily work. Besides eating to gain like that for me, was like a part time job and...bull.
Jen

It really is like a part-time job (that I'm not going to get paid for) and really can break the bank! It's expensive enough for me to eat what I need to eat as a diabetic, and eating to gain bulk is even more expensive.

Art Silva wrote:
In the real world it makes sense. How many women looking to buy these fashions can actually fit in these as they are presented and look on the runway? Im willing to bet Not Many.

+1,000

Yes, I agree!

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
This law exists to deduce anorexia rates.

What happens if in a year or two or five the rates haven't declined?

The law will fail like many(most) other’s
But that’s not the Primary benefit I see

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
This law exists to deduce anorexia rates.

What happens if in a year or two or five the rates haven't declined?

Interesting question. If I had to put money on it, fuck all.

Jay  Edwards wrote:
Government knows what's best for us.

I'm sure they mean well.

It's an excellent argument for a new system where only experts in the fields make decisions on different areas of government - only economists decide economic policy, only doctors decide health policy, etc. Rather than politicians who are expected to be jacks of all trades and make decisions based on 0.01% of available information.

ValHig wrote:

It's an excellent argument for a new system where only experts in the fields make decisions on different areas of government - only economists decide economic policy, only doctors decide health policy, etc. Rather than politicians who are expected to be jacks of all trades and make decisions based on 0.01% of available information.

Using the free market is an even better ''argument''...