Vogue Bans Unhealthy Beauty Standards

Discussion in 'Media & Commentators' started by Polly Minx, May 6, 2012.

  1. Polly Minx

    Polly Minx Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Vogue, the world-famous standard-bearer of the fashion industry, has recently decided to stop using models under the age of 16 and/or who appear to have eating disorders. THERE's a thought!

    If it seems like the fashion industry's beauty standards have become more oppressive over time, that's because they have. As recently as 20 years ago, the typical fashion model was a size 6, while the typical American woman (whom the industry has NEVER considered attractive) wasn't terribly distant from that standard. Today, size 6 is considered a "plus size" in the industry. The typical American woman currently is a size 14, while the typical model is a size 0, and I'm not exaggerating. While real women are getting heavier, fashion models continue to get more ridiculously skinny to the point that a recent study found that the majority of models today qualify as anorexic. The message is clear: healthy is ugly. I remember reading a cover recently briefly discussing an interview with Heidi Klum wherein she claims to have been "too skinny". The headline sarcastically responded: "In What Universe?" That, up until now, has summed up the emergent mentality of the industry, and therefore of the general population: when it comes to women, there is no such thing as too thin. Frankly, many of the models I see on magazine covers look like they might been locked up in a Nazi concentration camp a week ago.

    Age-wise, we know the industry is basically about promoting sex appeal. Yet it commonly employs girls as young as 12 and 13. I don't think I need to explain what THAT's all about.

    So yes, I approve of this move by the standard-bearer of fashion. Of course, age 18 or so (fully adult in other words) might be a more moral standard. And of course you'll notice that they've opted not to apply these standards to the company's other publications...

    ...but still, this is a huge step in the right direction, no doubt about it! Where Vogue boldly goes, there is no doubt in my mind that other prominent publications will feel compelled to follow. I look forward to being considered acceptable.
     
  2. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,354
    Likes Received:
    3,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Beauty is health.

    Now listen....that might be skinny too! I've always been a sack of bones...even now in my late 40's. But that is my metabolism.

    I had a PE teacher in college who was "big boned" meaning she was healthy, fit, toned but not thin. She discovered the beauty of her own particular frame after landing in the hospital after commiting herself to unhealthy diets designed to turn herself into something she wasn't capable of being.
     
  3. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's all good. Maybe it should be illegal to use children under 16 and maybe even 18 unless it's for children's clothing. It's just silly anyway to use these very thin (no offense) children if the people buying are completely different.
     
  4. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We'll just see. I think their pronouncement is highly unlikely.
     

Share This Page