IDiivil wrote:
First thing I noticed was that the supposedly anorexic thin lady in the NSFW picture has a body nearly identical to mine in thinness...

... and I'm perfectly healthy. Just can't really skip meals.

You have the physical criteria for anorexia.

Kind of like how there are physical criteria for schizophrenia.

Damianne wrote:
There are physical criteria for anorexia?
That sounds stupid and wrong.

I think it's just one, BMI. And the DSM, I believe, doesn't differentiate between physical and mental criteria. It just is criteria.
BMI alone does not mean you're anorexic, though. There has to be more to it than that. Because being underweight or malnourished can occur without having an eating disorder.

ShivaKitty wrote:
D. Many people feel "butthurt" when they realize they do not fit idealized beauty standards. Instead of either learning to love their bodies, or working to make changes to themselves, they choose to bitch about the people who do fit those standards.

Quoted this for truthness

Lauren A Farrington wrote:

I think it's just one, BMI. And the DSM, I believe, doesn't differentiate between physical and mental criteria. It just is criteria.
BMI alone does not mean you're anorexic, though. There has to be more to it than that. Because being underweight or malnourished can occur without having an eating disorder.

BMI is very unreliable. For me my BMI says that I'm overweight, but my fat percentage is only 9% (which is in the 'Very Low' category)

Nedah Oyin wrote:
fashion models areNOT getting skinnier.. regular women are getting fatter.. this article is pretty obviously going for shock value..

This is true.

54% of the people over here in The Netherlands are obese.
Don't even wanna know whay the percentage is in countries like the USA..

TRC Photography wrote:
From the article:

"...the disparity between models and the real-life women they are purporting to represent."


This very common reference simply PISSES me off. I have taken thousands of photographs of models, and I assure you, each and every one was taken of a very REAL-LIFE WOMAN.

That was what I was just thinking. Yes, some models have eating disorders and some are just real women who take good care of their bodies or are naturally thin. Not every woman has the same body type, some curvier and some thinner, whether they are models or not. It is just silly to say that models aren't real women.

Mattin wrote:
This is true.

54% of the people over here in The Netherlands are obese.
Don't even wanna know whay the percentage is in countries like the USA..

ehm, no

check your numbers again


http://preventie.kwfkankerbestrijding.n … jfers.aspx

In the netherlands:
57% of adult males is overweight
42% of adult women is overweight
12% of adults is obese

in the US, around 36% of all adults is obese (on average, it can vary a lot depending on the region)
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html

pverweight means BMI between 25 and 30, obese means BMI above 30. And as you have pointed out before, BMI is not the most trustworthy way to go when it comes to weight.

By bmi standards, I'm obese (not too happy about that)

Maria Michaela wrote:

ehm, no

check your numbers again


http://preventie.kwfkankerbestrijding.n … jfers.aspx

In the netherlands:
57% of adult males is overweight
42% of adult women is overweight
12% of adults is obese

in the US, around 36% of all adults is obese (on average, it can vary a lot depending on the region)
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html

pverweight means BMI between 25 and 30, obese means BMI above 30. And as you have pointed out before, BMI is not the most trustworthy way to go when it comes to weight.

By bmi standards, I'm obese (not too happy about that)

Whoops I ment overweight not obese.

(didn't remember the number correctly I see but it was kinda close-ish :p (4,5% off the real percentage).


My bad!

Joshua Sheldon wrote:
Magazine editorial reveals shocking disparity between sizes of models and real women

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 … -size-and/

Theater is illusion, performance is illusion, modeling is illusion...I suppose they could use regular people in theater just reading lines and it would be similar to using non-models instead of models, right?

Lauren A Farrington wrote:

I think it's just one, BMI. And the DSM, I believe, doesn't differentiate between physical and mental criteria. It just is criteria.
BMI alone does not mean you're anorexic, though. There has to be more to it than that. Because being underweight or malnourished can occur without having an eating disorder.

Anorexia has nothing to do with weight.
Weight is a side effect of anorexia.

One can be 300 lbs and drop to 250 from not eating, still be terribly overweight, and anorexic.

Damianne wrote:

Anorexia has nothing to do with weight.
Weight is a side effect of anorexia.

One can be 300 lbs and drop to 250 from not eating, still be terribly overweight, and anorexic.

Well, yes, I agree; it's a side effect of the behaviors typical of the disorder. But, even if you think this way, you can't say weight has NOTHING to do with it. They are still connected. You can still meet the criteria without having a BMI of X or being underweight. The behaviors matter more than the weight, but if you have the behaviors, your weight will be dropping as well (and probably at an alarming rate, of course depending on the circumstances).
Now, you can have an eating disorder, or more than one, in which your weight isn't really much of a factor at all (like bulimia). But for anorexia, dropping weight fast or being underweight (and thus having a BMI of such and such), is typical, as well as having other mental/introverted symptoms.
Does that make sense? Am I making sense? It's been a while since I've taken psychology, but we did discuss this a fair amount so I retained some of the information (just perhaps not the proper intelligence, I guess, to put it eloquently).

Mattin wrote:

BMI is very unreliable. For me my BMI says that I'm overweight, but my fat percentage is only 9% (which is in the 'Very Low' category)

I agree, but I think the DSM lists BMI as a physical criteria (but it's been a while since I looked at it, so I can't be 100% on that).

Lauren A Farrington wrote:

I agree, but I think the DSM lists BMI as a physical criteria (but it's been a while since I looked at it, so I can't be 100% on that).

Bmi is still bullshit..

moving pictures wrote:
Ha...

What a BS article. The "big" model in the shoot is fat.  That's the bottom line.  No wonder magazines didn't want to publish it.  And to claim that the former supermodels were as overweight as the model in the editorial is either hallucinatory or downright deceitful.

Fashion is aspirational.   Women don't aspire to be as overweight as the model in those images.  That's why those "big" models don't sell.

Good job fighting thin bashing with fat bashing
Why is this necessary? Yes, that article is stupid. But there are a lot of people, myself included, who are perfectly happy with being "fat." Just like there are plenty of people who like being thin.

TRC Photography wrote:
From the article:

"...the disparity between models and the real-life women they are purporting to represent."


This very common reference simply PISSES me off. I have taken thousands of photographs of models, and I assure you, each and every one was taken of a very REAL-LIFE WOMAN.

+1 That such as insult to women that take care of themselves, workout, and watch their weight. Also don't forget obesity is on the rise and the U.S. is the fattest country in the world.

Thinner models photograph better then heavier models for most shoots which is why they are used. The camera adds weight and size both the appearance of muscle and fat to both men and women. On the flip side often those really lean women have hard looking faces that have to be softened in post.

I'm so tired of people calling Fat Women real women, and thin, or athletic in shape women not real. They are just as real as anyone else. They just make their body a priority or are naturally gifted with thin genetics.

I live in Vegas I see ton of beautiful thin women all over the place everyone of them are real!

As far as this stupid article they have a fat model and a very then model of course to show contract and get readers. More B.S. sensationalism. They should have had a model that is in between the two. Look at any playboy and you see women that are not too thin and not fat. Only in high fashion do you see super thin models.

But my main gripe is FAT = REAL and some how those others are not real. And also that FAT = Curvy. I seem plenty of curves on in shape women in fact I see more curves and smoother curves on in shape women.

FAT = FAT call it what it is.

If you don't like being called FAT lose weight. If you're ok with it own it. There are segments of the population that like FAT women and find it attractive so this is not being Anti-Fat. It's being anti-B.S.

Nedah Oyin wrote:

Bmi is still bullshit..

Like I said, I completely agree.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:

+1 That such as insult to women that take care of themselves, workout, and watch their weight. Also don't forget obesity is on the rise and the U.S. is the fattest country in the world.

Thinner models photograph better then heavier models for most shoots which is why they are used. The camera adds weight and size both the appearance of muscle and fat to both men and women. On the flip side often those really lean women have hard looking faces that have to be softened in post.

I'm so tired of people calling Fat Women real women, and thin, or athletic in shape women not real. They are just as real as anyone else. They just make their body a priority or are naturally gifted with thin genetics.

I live in Vegas I see ton of beautiful thin women all over the place everyone of them are real!

As far as this stupid article they have a fat model and a very then model of course to show contract and get readers. More B.S. sensationalism. They should have had a model that is in between the two. Look at any playboy and you see women that are not too thin and not fat. Only in high fashion do you see super thin models.

But my main gripe is FAT = REAL and some how those others are not real. And also that FAT = Curvy. I seem plenty of curves on in shape women in fact I see more curves and smoother curves on in shape women.

FAT = FAT call it what it is.

If you don't like being called FAT lose weight. If you're ok with it own it. There are segments of the population that like FAT women and find it attractive so this is not being Anti-Fat. It's being anti-B.S.

What about the girls who TRY to own their "fatness", and yet, people still think it's ok to call them fat and tell them to eat a salad when they walk by on the street and are minding their own business? Or the girls who aren't really very "fat" or terribly overweight, but are still called fat, and after hearing it so many times, start to believe it?
I agree that we can't coddle everyone, but honestly, your body is your own and I don't feel it's right to comment negatively on someone else's body if they don't ask for it (and this goes for the skinny girls who are wrongfully branded as anorexic, as well). There are ways to approach the subject with more tact than just calling someone fat, and it can be very damaging to one's self-esteem. And it can contribute to the development of eating disorders.
Basically, everyone just needs to mind their own goddamn business.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:

+1 That such as insult to women that take care of themselves, workout, and watch their weight. Also don't forget obesity is on the rise and the U.S. is the fattest country in the world.

Thinner models photograph better then heavier models for most shoots which is why they are used. The camera adds weight and size both the appearance of muscle and fat to both men and women. On the flip side often those really lean women have hard looking faces that have to be softened in post.

I'm so tired of people calling Fat Women real women, and thin, or athletic in shape women not real. They are just as real as anyone else. They just make their body a priority or are naturally gifted with thin genetics.

I live in Vegas I see ton of beautiful thin women all over the place everyone of them are real!

As far as this stupid article they have a fat model and a very then model of course to show contract and get readers. More B.S. sensationalism. They should have had a model that is in between the two. Look at any playboy and you see women that are not too thin and not fat. Only in high fashion do you see super thin models.

But my main gripe is FAT = REAL and some how those others are not real. And also that FAT = Curvy. I seem plenty of curves on in shape women in fact I see more curves and smoother curves on in shape women.

FAT = FAT call it what it is.

If you don't like being called FAT lose weight. If you're ok with it own it. There are segments of the population that like FAT women and find it attractive so this is not being Anti-Fat. It's being anti-B.S.

this is a bit...aggressive

Mischa Marie wrote:
Good job fighting thin bashing with fat bashing

+1

Can we just lay off the body bashing as a whole? Thin bashing: not okay. Fat bashing: not okay. How about we all just mind our own business?

George Ruge wrote:
Fashion models are not hired to represent women, they are hired to present clothing in a way that the designers think shows their line the best on the runway. I think that size 0 is probably a very small percentage of their actual production.

++

Lauren A Farrington wrote:

Well, yes, I agree; it's a side effect of the behaviors typical of the disorder. But, even if you think this way, you can't say weight has NOTHING to do with it. They are still connected. You can still meet the criteria without having a BMI of X or being underweight. The behaviors matter more than the weight, but if you have the behaviors, your weight will be dropping as well (and probably at an alarming rate, of course depending on the circumstances).
Now, you can have an eating disorder, or more than one, in which your weight isn't really much of a factor at all (like bulimia). But for anorexia, dropping weight fast or being underweight (and thus having a BMI of such and such), is typical, as well as having other mental/introverted symptoms.
Does that make sense? Am I making sense? It's been a while since I've taken psychology, but we did discuss this a fair amount so I retained some of the information (just perhaps not the proper intelligence, I guess, to put it eloquently).

Sure, that's the health concern. It's still not an indicator of anorexia. Anorexia causes malnutrition. That's the physical problem. If one is looking for physical indicators of the problem, one would look for the physical criteria for malnutrition. Saying that most models are malnourished would be a goddamn lie, so they say "meet the physical criteria for anorexia" which don't exist, and so therefore there's nothing to point at and say "well that's not true". So I'm calling bullshit on the whole thing. It's just saying "skinny people have anorexia" in a roundabout pussyfoot way to be shitty, and I don't approve. Fuck that.

Lauren A Farrington wrote:
[What about the girls who TRY to own their "fatness", and yet, people still think it's ok to call them fat and tell them to eat a salad when they walk by on the street and are minding their own business? Or the girls who aren't really very "fat" or terribly overweight, but are still called fat, and after hearing it so many times, start to believe it?
I agree that we can't coddle everyone, but honestly, your body is your own and I don't feel it's right to comment negatively on someone else's body if they don't ask for it (and this goes for the skinny girls who are wrongfully branded as anorexic, as well). There are ways to approach the subject with more tact than just calling someone fat, and it can be very damaging to one's self-esteem. And it can contribute to the development of eating disorders.
Basically, everyone just needs to mind their own goddamn business.

I think its equally as damaging to one's self esteem to be called "not-real" and have personally been shouted at to "eat a hamburger" while in Chicago doing everyday things and not modeling. I've run into haters who don't like height or slimness or act out their own self-or-overweight loathing by being mean or cruel...especially over food for goodness sakes. Such as at lunch, "Oh, you can probably eat anything...." Said over a snare and glare and shot like a mean dagger....yeah, real nice.

What I do agree with you on is that it is not right to comment negatively/personally on someone else's body. It isn't right at all, for anyone.
Jen

Tansy Blue wrote:
I hated that editorial. I think that all body shapes should be appreciated, and that editorial just didn't do it. The plus llama was shown smiling, happy, engaged with the camera; we never even saw the straight size llama's face. I don't think she was even credited alongside the plus llama. I'd love to see all body sizes treated equally by all people...so far it just doesn't seem to be happening.

I like this better:
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 0070_n.jpg

There may have been other reasons why the fashion llama did not show her face. Perhaps she celebrated the cause, but her agency didn't want her to be recognisable as that girl who got naked to celebrate non-model women?

She could have chosen (or her agency) not to have her credited for fear of any backlash from the fashionistas, from whence she gets her work.

Naomi Jay wrote:
ANd BMI is BS.

Agreed.

ShivaKitty wrote:
A. I tend to regard everything on the FoxNews site with a high level of cynicism.

B. Women who are 5'10 and 120 pounds are "real women," just like everyone else.

C. Women can be 5'10 and 120 pounds, can be perfectly healthy. That's for a medical professional to decide, not random people looking at pictures.

D. Many people feel "butthurt" when they realize they do not fit idealized beauty standards. Instead of either learning to love their bodies, or working to make changes to themselves, they choose to bitch about the people who do fit those standards.

E. I tend to regard everything on the FoxNews site with a high level of cynicism.

+1

AJScalzitti wrote:
Advertisers use images that generate sales, if that isn't using common sized women then perhaps the issue lies with the consumer and not the models, photographers, advertisers, and designers...

+1

The market is getting exactly what it wants, fresh-faced, "normal" sized bodies which are height and weight proportional. Entirely too many excuses are made for overlooking the fact that being fat is an issue.

Let's face it...how many people do you know personally who are willing to eat reasonable portions of food, keep alcohol and partying to a minimum so they can get up early and exercise each morning? nope...most would rather beat down models who are doing that.

iseethelightman wrote:

+1

The market is getting exactly what it wants, fresh-faced, "normal" sized bodies which are height and weight proportional. Entirely too many excuses are made for overlooking the fact that being fat is an issue.

Let's face it...how many people do you know personally who are willing to eat reasonable portions of food, keep alcohol and partying to a minimum so they can get up early and exercise each morning? nope...most would rather beat down models who are doing that.

plus size models do the same thing you know... It's not like bigger models spend their day hanging around macdonalds and watching television.

I think a lot of consumer wouldn't mind if fashion labels used bigger size models every now and then. there are labels who are trying it and who have been doing it succesfully. I'm not necessarily saying with a size 18 model or whatever, but I don't see why a lot of things wouldn't sell just as good and represent the label just as good if they were being showcased on a variety of sizes, including a 10 (on a 6'0 gorgeous model, there's nothing "average" about that).

Ralph Lauren shot with a plus size model not too long ago, I'm curious to see how that turns out and how consumer respond. It's a risk, but with stuff like this, the proof is in the pudding. I just think a lot of brands aren't willing/ready to take the risk.

Joshua Sheldon wrote:
Magazine editorial reveals shocking disparity between sizes of models and real women

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 … -size-and/

Got a source that isn't Faux News?

Greg Easton Photography wrote:

Got a source that isn't Faux News?

Damianne wrote:

Sure, that's the health concern. It's still not an indicator of anorexia. Anorexia causes malnutrition. That's the physical problem. If one is looking for physical indicators of the problem, one would look for the physical criteria for malnutrition. Saying that most models are malnourished would be a goddamn lie, so they say "meet the physical criteria for anorexia" which don't exist, and so therefore there's nothing to point at and say "well that's not true". So I'm calling bullshit on the whole thing. It's just saying "skinny people have anorexia" in a roundabout pussyfoot way to be shitty, and I don't approve. Fuck that.

Girl, you won't hear me arguing. My point is just that, weight and anorexia are related; but underweight and anorexia are by no means synonymous.
The skinny=anorexic bullshit angers me, as well. People throw around "anorexic" and "bulimic" without even knowing what the disorders are (seriously, I've met people who don't know the difference) or what the symptoms are (beyond "being skinny"). It's infuriating. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have a general idea of what I'm talking about. Anyone who has a clue wouldn't randomly accuse a skinny person of having a disorder, unless there were other underlying symptoms (even then, throwing out accusations can often make things worse).
Claiming that fashion models meet ONE criterion for an eating disorder will make people think that models in fact HAVE said eating disorder, which is inaccurate. Clearly some models do struggle with eating disorders...as do many non-models. Their job title is irrelevant, though people working in fashion who might be predisposed to an eating disorder could easily fall into one under the pressure of having to be a certain size. Still, this is not to say being a model makes you more prone to having/developing an eating disorder; the job has nothing to do with it. It's all about the person.