if there was any doubt to the fashion industry conspiracy...

[Seshat]

It's generally accepted in the fashion industry that the models are just clothes hangers. No one, including the designers of these clothes, actually expect that someone will look like that in real life.

They use the ultra-thin (unhealthily thin) models specifically so that the lines of the clothes will not be affected by the lines of the woman beneath it.

This is also why many clothing lines don't make clothes for women larger than a certain size. If you're below about that size, it doesn't matter so much whether your natural body shape is pear, apple, inverted pear, hourglass or column*. The difference needed in clothing cut isn't so great that it'll make the garments hang particularly wrong.

I'm sure you've all experienced it, though. A garment that fits wonderfully at, say, the shoulders but is all wrong at the hips. Or vice versa.


Once you're my size, however, a garment designed for a pear looks awful on an inverted pear. One for an apple sags on an hourglass' waist, and one for an hourglass just doesn't fit an apple at all. And so on. The larger the woman, the greater the variations needed.

THEN add the fact that only one female body shape needs clothes that look good on a hanger: the column.
Clothes cut for a pear, apple, inverted pear or hourglass look like crap on a hanger. I've started to learn what kind of 'looks like crap' to look for, for my figure type (hourglass); but it takes effort. Most people just see a garment that looks ill-cut and move on to the one designed for a column-figure....



* pear: hippy
* apple: tummy-y
* invert pear: booby
* hourglass: hips & tits & a distinct waist
* column: sort-a straight up and down. Boyishly-athletic.

[Boozy]

I look around and rarely do I see anything that was designed by fashion designers and shown at those shows actually being worn by anyone.

Makes you wonder where the high end fashion industry generates its money from.

You guys are thinking of haute couture. Those lines are just artistic creations by big-name designers, made to look splashy at the shows during Fashion Week, and are solely meant to generate media buzz for the design house. Which is why "weird" is better.

They don't expect to sell any of those pieces to anyone. They are all handsewn, often by the designer themselves, and the pieces are made-to-order only. Sometimes they'll make a few of these pieces for certain celebrities for free, to create more buzz. Haute couture is the fashion industry's marketing department -- that's all.

Design houses actually make their money from their ready-to-wear lines, which you'll see on middle to upper class women all over the world. They'll often have lower-end lines too meant for the "aspirational middle-class." That's how they make their money. These clothes are far more functional and affordable. They retain only a handful of the haute couture line's features, such as the colour palette, or the assymetrical hemlines.

[blas87]

No kidding. Some of the trash magazines I get in the mail, there's sections of how to get the "look" for "less", yet the knock off or similar clothing is still more expensive than I'd ever pay.

Even in recent years, I haven't changed my style of jeans. I've been more open minded about looser fitting tops, but I'm still pretty hesitant with some of those styles.

I'll always be a low rise flare jean kinda gal, and I'll always love my long sleeved low cut tops with a cute lace cami tanktop underneath. Or in the summer, it's two tanktops or one really cute shirt, but I really don't care much for this revival of the 80s with skinny jeans and overly baggy tops that drape below the shoulders. Or the wild hair for that matter. I've been known to use the hot rollers for some volume or slight curls, but I prefer to keep my hair as stick straight as I can. And even though it's not as hot as it was a few years ago, the two tone hairstyle (two different colors) works great for me.

Another one of my favorite looks is a zip hoodie with a cute tank under it.

[Gravekeeper]

Makes you wonder where the high end fashion industry generates its money from. Exclusively idiotic celebrities and socialites with too much cash on their hands?

Its certainly not the public at large. The general public would neither wear nor could afford 99% of the stuff that trots down the cat walk in the high end fashion world.

[jackfaire]

It's generally accepted in the fashion industry that the models are just clothes hangers. No one, including the designers of these clothes, actually expect that someone will look like that in real life.

Which is why it boggles my mind that they expect anyone to buy those clothes I look around and rarely do I see anything that was designed by fashion designers and shown at those shows actually being worn by anyone.

[blas87]

It's unhealthy and gross to see someone whose malnourishment shows, no matter how much makeup or airbrushing gets done to their face and body.

Their cheeks are hollow and sunken in, their bones are nearly poking out of the skin, their eyes look lifeless, and they always look older than they are, not younger. With the fashion industry being obsessed with tall women, you get a bunch of girls that are over 5'6 and barely 100 lbs, if even that. Well, 100 pounds is suitable for someone who is 5'0, not 5'9.

Then again, I never really buy anything that looks "fashionable" on TV or in the magazines because it's never catered to anyone who actually has breasts, hips, or a butt.

[Boozy]

It's generally accepted in the fashion industry that the models are just clothes hangers. No one, including the designers of these clothes, actually expect that someone will look like that in real life.

[fireheart17]

I must admit I have never, ever understood the high fashion scene nor have I ever seen it appear in real life at any point in my own life. Nor have I ever known anyone that pays a shred of attention to the silliness that occurs in it. I don't think I've ever seen a single outfit on display at one of these high end fashion shows that anyone in their right mind would ever wear.

Plus they're always draped over some horrific skeletal woman who looks like its taking all of her energy just to walk a straight line. I will never understand why anyone thinks portruding bone is attractive. >.>

I've never really understood the high fashion scene either. Nor do I really understand certain fashion trends. I'll go with a trend if I think it'll last or it's adaptable (for example, I still have a peasant skirt somewhere-while the boho trend has somewhat fallen by the wayside recently, the skirt is still usable with everyday t-shirts and flats), but there are some trends that make me facepalm.

As for the comment regarding models, I remember reading somewhere that the whole "skeletal" woman thing was partially due to the fact that originally they would put more healthier looking models out there, but the journalists, photographers and the like focused on the person as a whole, rather than on just what she was wearing. The idea for the stick-figure was that if they couldn't notice the woman, then they'd concentrate more on the clothes. That could be horrifically incorrect, I don't know.

[blas87]

My BMI is at "overweight", but I consider myself relatively thin. I'm built like a white version of Beyonce or Kim Kardashian (except my rear is nowhere near that damn large), but very, very muscular legs, shoulders and back.

Before I joined the gym, I could barely lift a bag of potatoes or a gallon of milk. Now I can help my dad hurl bags of wood pellets and not crack a sweat.

I think the average model is disgusting and gross. At least plus size models look happy. And yet, they don't even appear that "plus" sized at all. They look like normal women, and what a healthy woman looks like.

[Boozy]

That's high by your standards?

She didn't say it was high. She said it's "only that high because"...There's a difference.

[Gravekeeper]

I must admit I have never, ever understood the high fashion scene nor have I ever seen it appear in real life at any point in my own life. Nor have I ever known anyone that pays a shred of attention to the silliness that occurs in it. I don't think I've ever seen a single outfit on display at one of these high end fashion shows that anyone in their right mind would ever wear.

Plus they're always draped over some horrific skeletal woman who looks like its taking all of her energy just to walk a straight line. I will never understand why anyone thinks portruding bone is attractive. >.>

[AdminAssistant]

TSomeone mentioned it earlier, but Peter Pan has traditionally been done as a female role for size among other things.

The Breeches role is a trope that goes back to the Restoration and did continue through the 20th century with such actresses as Sarah Bernhardt and Maude Adams (the original Peter Pan).

According to Kim Marra in Strange Duets: Impresarios & Actresses in the American Theatre, 1865-1914, Barrie wanted Peter Pan to be played by an actress in part due to his homosexuality. "Adams had queer male appeal in Barrie's fairy tale partly because it featured the one breeches part in her repertoire that Bernhardt could not credibly embody" (123).

[fireheart17]

Models like this sicken me. Seriously.

My BMI is about 19, and it's only that high because I'm short (4'11). I'm one of those pepole who can eat all day but since I'm pretty active, I don't gain weight easily at all. For me, it's half-blessing, half-curse.

That's high by your standards? anything over 25 is overweight and anything over 30 is considered to be obese. I have no idea what mine is and I don't particularly care. Especially because it only considers weight on the scales and doesn't take into account muscle. So a guy who bodybuilds is apparently obese according to the BMI standards.

Women were often cast as male characters in the 19th-early 20th century because it gave the audiences an opportunity to see their legs when 'ladies' barely showed any ankle. Why do you think Peter Pan wears those little tights?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but Peter Pan has traditionally been done as a female role for size among other things.

As for the original post, that's a male?!

[AdminAssistant]

Performers were male in ye olden day primarily because being an actor was considered as 'noble' as being a thief. It wasn't a 'lady-like' profession. And when women were allowed on stage in Restoration England, many were considered to be little more than prostitutes. It took a very long time for actors, and actresses in particular, to be seen as respectable.

Women were often cast as male characters in the 19th-early 20th century because it gave the audiences an opportunity to see their legs when 'ladies' barely showed any ankle. Why do you think Peter Pan wears those little tights?

[lordlundar]

Well I agree it's not exactly a good idea to be promoting an impossible figure, it's not a new thing in theater. Peter pan for example was supposed to be of an elven stature so women were often used for the role (and I've seen a number of stage performances of it, it's well done) And during Shakespeare's time and even as far back as the roman empire theater performers were male, regardless of the gender role of the character.