Moni B wrote:
I just want top designers to start putting average women in there clothes.

Do you want top ad agencies to start hiring average photographers for their magazine ads?

Do you want top financial companies to start hiring average accountants?

Do you want top directors to cast average actors to star in their blockbuster movies?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Do you want top financial companies to start hiring average accountants?

Do you want top directors to cast average actors to star in their blockbuster movies?

Isn't that already happening? Hahaha, I'm full of smart ass jokes today. I totally need someone to walk around with a drum set behind me, I need a beat every time I get to the punch line

Jojo West wrote:
I totally need someone to walk around with a drum set behind me, I need a beat every time I get to the punch line

(Provides rimshot)

salvatori. wrote:
The problem with the whole "I want average women..." mentality is this:

People may say they want that, but they don't. They want something that is unattainable. That's the reason we (as a culture) buy half the shit we do; because we think it gives us a leg up on everyone else.

Look at the Dove campaign a couple of years ago. When it premiered, everyone said, "Great! Real women!" But the campaign lasted less than a year.

Dove still uses "real women" to this day...

Anyway, in regards to size, you can perfectly have a llama that has a more "average" size and still looks unattainable.

these llama have a size 12, I don't consider them plain and average in any way though...

Anna Adrielle wrote:

Dove still uses "real women" to this day...

Anyway, in regards to size, you can perfectly have a model that has a more "average" size and still looks unattainable.

these model have a size 12, I don't consider them plain and average in any way though...

IMHO, these pics differ from the campaign as the 'plain-ness' is gone. Just because a woman is a normal size means less than when she is retouched and photographed in a tropical and exotic setting.

And anyone that looks at my portfolio can see I certainly prefer to photograph a woman more naturally, so we're on the same side

Moni B wrote:

I just want top designers to start putting average women in there clothes. Because in reality those are the women that purchase the items anyway. They could really help with what the media would portray as beauty.

Problem is that if the designers did that people would stop looking at the images because they find images of average people boring. They see that around them all the time - it's average, it's usual.

For people to get interested and want to voluntarily view images they have to be unusual or extraordinary. It's the same in all art. People don't want to listen to a sound recording of an average day on their street, they want an unusual and structured arrangement of sound, that's music. People don't want to watch some random and tedious recording of a street corner, they want the unrealistic, scripted and exciting plots and characterizations of literature of film.

And the audience, for all of their body insecurities, does not want images of average women. Unless forced they won't look at them and when force fed them will promptly go elsewhere to find an extraordinary image or fantasy that appeals to them.

Moni B wrote:
JUST READ A LOCAL CASTING FOR A MODEL REQUEST.

5'9 min and under 115 pounds?!? You want this girl to be anorexic! It is sad that the reason women starve themselves is because designers request such disgust and unhealthy requirements. Unbelievable.

Question:

Who do think is healthier?  And why?
If you could be either...which would you choose?

A female model that is 5' 9" and 115 lbs. 17 BMI
or..
A female model that is 5' 9" and 175 lbs. 26 BMI

Both are two BMI numbers away from "normal".



Wildcat

Anna Adrielle wrote:
also... insulting an industry you're trying to break into? smart.

It took one click of my mouse and 7 seconds of thought to realize I don't think she's the OP is trying to break into anything but the forums.

I have some doubts about this, lol.

salvatori. wrote:

Okay, remove the second part of my reply.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE cite, or provide a link, to the CC so we can see EXACTLY how it was worded.

If you can't do this, your argument here has ZERO credibility. And I AM talking about specifics. You cited a CC and based an argument on that. Without at least the simple ability to show the rest of us EXACTLY what you were basing your argument on, you have no argument.

Am I concentrating on specifics? YES, as your original thread referenced a particular item. Argumentation & Debate 101.

You can not be serious? I am speaking in general using that as an example. Step outside that box please.

Moni B wrote:
JUST READ A LOCAL CASTING FOR A MODEL REQUEST.

5'9 min and under 115 pounds?!? You want this girl to be anorexic! It is sad that the reason women starve themselves is because designers request such disgust and unhealthy requirements. Unbelievable.

the model i work with the most is 5'9" 115lbs and eats more then i do...
she doesnt have anorexia or bulimia, she has boundless energy and burns off every calorie she takes in....she is totally healthy..

modeling is more about genetics, then it is anything else...

Moni B wrote:
JUST READ A LOCAL CASTING FOR A MODEL REQUEST.

5'9 min and under 115 pounds?!? You want this girl to be anorexic! It is sad that the reason women starve themselves is because designers request such disgust and unhealthy requirements. Unbelievable.

No.

I had a friend in high school who was about 5'9 and was around that weight. She was definitely not anorexic, in fact, she ate more than me on most occasions. She had a thyroid problem, but was not anorexic.

People come in many shapes and sizes. Don't automatically assume that some who who is tall and slender is automatically anorexic.

Moni B wrote:
You can not be serious? I am speaking in general using that as an example. Step outside that box please.

So you made it up? Well, you just lost me. Didn't realize you just wanted to rant. So why stop at designers? Isn't EVERYONE out to make anorexia a national pastime?

K E E L I N G wrote:

It took one click of my mouse and 7 seconds of thought to realize I don't think she's the OP is trying to break into anything but the forums.

I have some doubts about this, lol.

Forum popularity -___- The thought process of others bewilder's my mind.

Moni B wrote:

Forum popularity -___- The thought process of others bewilder's my mind.

Now I'm convinced of it.

Moni B wrote:
...The thought process of others bewilder's my mind.

There's a lot of that going around.

Moni B wrote:
This is just a mere discussion of opinions. But what the media portrays as beauty affects millions of women worldwide. Are you blind?!? OTHERS bodies have nothing to do with me you are right, but if you continue to ignore the problem you are apart of it.

Only if it IS a problem in the way you've stated it, and you've done nothing to support your claims. While dismissing many counter-points which negate yours may make it seem more legitimate, it doesn't change the fact that you're arguing emotionally and disregarding facts which don't match your preconceived decision.

Moni B wrote:
Not mad just a bit frustrated that others would take a post so wrong. Getting into the  medical terms of words and such. It was not intended to insult ANYONE. The point of the post was overlooked by emotions and context. This is why its a hopeless case.

The point you raised was solely based on emotions. You cited a couple of presumed facts (the casting call), and made an olympian leap to your emotional conclusion without showing how it was actually (if it is) related to the facts in evidence.

In other words: if you start a discussion based on an unsupported emotional claim, you should expect that people will respond in a similar way. If that's not what you want, try a different approach.

salvatori. wrote:
So it's from a PHOTOGRAPHER and the weight requirement of 115 lbs. has the word 'probably' in front of it. I assume because he might be a hair flexible?

They would do better to list measurements, instead of weight to determine sizing - but, eh... it's still not a terrible description, supported by this, it's pretty clear what they're looking for, and OP felt offended by this, for some reason.

If you are not really slim please do not submit for this casting (F under 115 lbs, max A or B cup and 5'9" absolute minimum height).

Moni B wrote:
designers are a main reason for anorexia

Blaming others for your problems are a main reason for people amounting to nothing in life.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Problem is that if the designers did that people would stop looking at the images because they find images of average people boring. They see that around them all the time - it's average, it's usual.

That is a good point about marketing.

I remember reading somewhere that when manufacturers sell their items & label (for example) the dress sizes as being "smaller" like a Size 0, they sell better by 20x when that exact same dress (w/ the same exact measurements & everything) is label as something bigger like a size 3 or 4.

Moni B wrote:
This was taken ALL wrong. This forum shall be deleted.

No, it shall not.

It might get locked, in which case, I'm in before it does, but it will be out there for all the world to see.  For a very.long.time.

California Girls Skate wrote:

Blaming others for your problems are a main reason for people amounting to nothing in life.

0.0 My problems. Sigh.

Moni B wrote:
Forum popularity -___- The thought process of others bewilder's my mind.

I am not bewildered by your thought process:

you need someone (or something) to blame for the fact that you are not fashion viable.

Moni B wrote:
Point was not to single out a specific CC. That is why. Yet one ignores that. Hopeless I tell ya.

Well, your original post pointed out a specific (but uncited) CC.
That point was certainly NOT ignored by me.
What is hopeless is your willingness to think and speak rationally.

I am usually a pretty laid back, very nice guy. But your insistence that everyone here is at fault except for you is so arrogant, it's ridiculous.

I'm done.

salvatori. wrote:

Well, your original post pointed out a specific (but uncited) CC.
That point was certainly NOT ignored by me.
What is hopeless is your willingness to think and speak rationally.

I am usually a pretty laid back, very nice guy. But your insistence that everyone here is at fault except for you is so arrogant, it's ridiculous.

I'm done.

I've never pointed the finger at anyone but defended myself. I understand if some felt offended by the way I worded my post as I do apologize for certain terms I used. I saw that CC and it just made me want to know others opinions on the problem. Not to point fingers or insult anyone. Not to gain popularity or any personal resentment against the CC. I just know that there's a situation out there that unfortunately is ignored by the mass media.

Moni B wrote:
Not to point fingers

Actually, you blamed everyone. And if I recall designers where the first on your list.

Chain Reaction wrote:

Actually, you blamed everyone. And if I recall designers where the first on your list.

I'm pointing a finger at YOUR designs.  'Cause I like 'em.

Chain Reaction wrote:

Actually, you blamed everyone. And if I recall designers where the first on your list.

No I did not blame everyone. I also did not say all designers. If it didn't pertain to you then you had no reason to feel offended by it. I'm telling you I don't mean everyone and everything got it?

Moni B wrote:
designers are a main reason for anorexia!

Moni B wrote:
I've never pointed the finger at anyone

ok, designers aren't anyone...got it...

Moni B wrote:
How do you delete a forum? I need to re-post so one would clearly understand the point of the forum.

You can't. And even deleting the OP as you did will not work because multiple people have quoted it already.

DivaEroticus wrote:
I'm pointing a finger at YOUR designs.  'Cause I like 'em.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I admit it. It's all my fault. You think I'd be ashamed but I'm not. I'm just sitting here stroking the cat on my lap with an evil grin on my face! Something like this...

And really I'm not offended. I found it rather amusing. It's just not in my nature to be offended by something a stranger writes in a post.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
ok, designers aren't anyone...got it...

Hey now! I resemble that remark! I'm offended! (I never said I was consistant)

e m i l y wrote:

No.

Some people's body frames support that, without starvation... just because someone looks this way doesn't mean they're anorexic or unhealthy -- especially if the model is not finished developing... many fashion models are 15-17 years old...

It's very sad to see this kind of judgment, often from people who don't fit the casting/industry mold.

Unless someone is a medical professional, people shouldn't be using medical terms like "anorexic" to describe others, anyway.  You don't know, and it's often very inaccurate and just plain insulting.

+10