Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

A fashion for BMI

Page: (1)2

pointless & uncalled for

11:31 / 13.09.06

A BBC article here explains how models falling beneath the UN reccomendations on health of a body mass index (BMI) of 18 to 23.5 will not appear on the catwalk during a fashion week in Spain.

Whilst fashion images are accused of responsibility for eating disorders, particularly in women, is there room for legislation to attempt to address this. Or, as one respondent argues, does the freedom of the designer, potentially as an artist, require a mode of freedom of speech that the houses of governance should not be able to infringe upon.

Furthermore, where a potential 30% of catwalk models fall under this exclusion, is this unfair on the models themselves.

14:43 / 13.09.06

Given that obesity is a much more pressing health concern than anorexia/bulimia, I wonder why it’s only models who are underweight that are being excluded.

There’s something a bit troubling about only optimally healthy bodies being deemed acceptable in terms of representation like this, isn’t there?

23:07 / 13.09.06

I suppose this is tangental, but I have been involved in demographics research RE: obesity, and the interesting thing about this "epidemic" is that there's no scientific measure of obesity. Like, an influenza epidemic, you've got a bunch of people with influenza, that's your epidemic. But BMI is an inaccurate standard. It was designed to provide general practitioners with a "rule of thumb" to help their patients visualize success, but doesn't take into account such factors as genetics or even general health. It doesn't have causes or vectors, in the sense that diseases are supposed to have, and is, in fact, more of a lifestyle than a disease. And it's interesting, isn't it, that a lifestyle has come to be commodified as a "disease" with a whole specialized industry to serve it.

23:10 / 13.09.06

For instance, a former bodybuilder with high blood pressure and/or diabetes is at tremendous risk from "obesity-related syndromes" but will probably have a "normal" BMI.

All Acting Regiment

07:32 / 15.09.06

Hmm. Really, the designers should be making clothes for real sized people right from the off. I don't think these things work very well if they are forced. Don't get me wrong though, I look at fashion spreads and just wonder at how thin they are- and then wonder who the hell has a right to demand that all women make themselves look like that...

08:50 / 15.09.06

I wonder why it’s only models who are underweight that are being excluded

Because there aren't any models who are overweight, at least not who do run-of-the-mill catwalk shows. The 'outsize' (outsize!) models don't get normal fashion week work.

pointless & uncalled for

09:15 / 15.09.06

There’s something a bit troubling about only optimally healthy bodies being deemed acceptable in terms of representation like this, isn’t there?

I don't think that they're going for optimally healthy, the BMI being applied is a fairly wide range. It's basically running from the border of underweight to the border of overweight. Crossing those borders means that the bodyweight is likely to lead to poor physical health or physical health related issues.

Admittedly the models that will now be used are likely to be optimally healthy, but that is a different matter itself because that is a response to a criteria.

pointless & uncalled for

09:27 / 15.09.06

Hmm. Really, the designers should be making clothes for real sized people right from the off. I don't think these things work very well if they are forced. Don't get me wrong though, I look at fashion spreads and just wonder at how thin they are- and then wonder who the hell has a right to demand that all women make themselves look like that...

But shouldn't designers be allowed the same artistic rights as other artists. Afterall, in an artisitc sense, what is the difference bewteen a sculptured piece of clay and a scultured piece of cloth?

Furthermore, the top designers don't actually design stuff destined for the off the peg racks that the majority of consumers buy from. It's a matter of informing the styles of the mass producers, in which case doesn't the design for real people gateway belong with the producers themselves.

And finally, are the designers demanding that all women look like this? Are they even demanding it of those that wish to wear their clothes? Aren't women, and I use this word in the broadest and loosest possible sense to imply the actual consumers, partly guilty for them demand, if it exists?

I will now cower behind my devils advocate hat.

10:42 / 15.09.06

Because there aren't any models who are overweight, at least not who do run-of-the-mill catwalk shows. The 'outsize' (outsize!) models don't get normal fashion week work.

Is that the reason though? If a designer did want to use models with a BMI over 30 for their show at Madrid fashion week, do you think they would be banned also? I suspect they would not. In fact, I suspect that they would be applauded by the same pressure groups lobbying for this.

Hmm. Really, the designers should be making clothes for real sized people right from the off.

Models are 'real sized'. What are you saying?
It seems odd that people are so comfortable othering and stigmatising thin people while being so opposed to the same being done to fat people.

pointless & uncalled for

11:06 / 15.09.06

Fatness and thinness do have markedly different non physical characteristics though. Thinness is considered to be achieved by intent, where as fatness is often seen to be the product of lack of or despite intent.

11:13 / 15.09.06

But in fact they are, in the main, both achieved by how much you do/don't eat and how much you do/don't exercise, right?

pointless & uncalled for

11:20 / 15.09.06

So people who could be described as overweight or obese wanted, at some point, to get that way?

All of them?

11:22 / 15.09.06

Well, I'd argue they wanted other things at the expense of being overweight, yeah.

11:24 / 15.09.06

Not strictly true. A priveleging of one somatype over another, perhaps? Which is a bit of a specious argument considering health concerns for extremes on either side but may have, at least, some merit to the discussion.

11:25 / 15.09.06

x-post to Weaving -2.

pointless & uncalled for

11:25 / 15.09.06

So no then. In which case intent it relevant.

11:30 / 15.09.06

I'm not sure I'm with you. Are you saying that there are fat people who wouldn't lose weight if they ate less and/or exercised more? Some people might find it harder to motivate themselves to lose or gain weight depending on various psychological factors (that you could argue are without their control), but I don't really see the difference between being under- or over-weight, in terms of intent.

pointless & uncalled for

11:42 / 15.09.06

I'm saying that it is of common opinion that you don't get underweight without intending to and that you can get overweight without intending to or even despite of an intention not to. An intention to do something else which carries the threat of becoming overweight doesn't, in my opinion, constitute an intention to become overweight itself. To argue that dismisses the issue of denial to begin with.

Therefore, in the sphere of my argument here, othering and stigmatisation of being thin differs from othering and stigmatisation, or lack thereof, or defense against, are not strictly correlatable due to the direction of common perception.

11:46 / 15.09.06

And I'm saying that this 'common perception' (which I'm not sure if you subscribe to or not) is bollocks. I, for example, weigh less than I would like to. And I'm sure I'm not unique in this respect.

pointless & uncalled for

11:58 / 15.09.06

Not one I subscribe to, just examining why the stigmatisation goes one way and not the other. Wouldn't be the first time that common perception was a big fat pile of utter wank.

Out of interest, would you say that your desire to gain weight is typical, say to a given demographic. This, I should caveat is just general weight gain as opposed to weightgain as a side-effect of something else, such as body-development and toning.

12:04 / 15.09.06

Well, I'd argue they wanted other things at the expense of being overweight, yeah.

There are plenty of people, women in particular, who have issues with food and use it in many different ways, most of them specifically not related to or having anything to do with the notion of being overweight, or in fact even eating. Lots of women turn to food as a source of comfort - they eat when they are angry or depressed for example. So I suppose on one level you could say that they wanted to be comforted more than they cared about being overweight, but that would be a very blinkered view I would think.

Is that the reason though? If a designer did want to use models with a BMI over 30 for their show at Madrid fashion week, do you think they would be banned also? I suspect they would not. In fact, I suspect that they would be applauded by the same pressure groups lobbying for this.

I think, Susan, that if you read the article you'll find it's not a 'pressure group'who are 'lobbying' for this, but actually the designers themselves, as quoted here:

The Spanish Association of Fashion Designers has decided to ban models who have a BMI of less than 18.

Regarding your hypothesis that women with a BMI over 30 would not be being banned from modelling at these shows, I expect you are correct, I very much doubt that a designer would be stopped if he or she wanted to use such models.

Primarily the decision to ban models whose BMI is under 18 seems to be about Spanish designers showing their distate for the international fashion industry's constant desire to use unhealthily thin women. I think your concern over the use of women with a BMI over 30 is a naive one; since plus size women are very rarely used as models for catwalks the need to ban them is highly unlikely to occur, and therefore is not very relevant to the concern over the continual portrayal of beauty=thinness which is rife within the fashion industry.

Obviously being obese is unhealthy, but obeseness is not the bodytype promoted by the fashion industry and so, as such, does not so immediately need to be addressed within it.

pointless & uncalled for

12:18 / 15.09.06

Primarily this decision seems to be about Spanish designers showing their distate for the international fashion industry's constant desire to use unhealthily thin women.

Actually, it seems that they are bowing to pressure from local authorities.

Your point on the industry not using larger size models is well made though. There isn't a culture of overweight and obese body role models in popular culture. The "beautiful people" are all exclusively thin and those who aren't are often criticised by the glam media for "letting themselves go" even when weight is largely irrelevant to their career.

12:18 / 15.09.06

Ignominious: Oh, yeah, I think you're probably right. A similar common perception is used to stigmatise people who 'choose' to be gay.

Not sure I understand you question. Typical to a given demographic? I'm just skinny, and I'd like to be bulkier, for aesthetic reasons.

Olulabelle: If you read the article you would have noticed the reference to the fact that "Unhealthily skinny models at last year's fashion shows led to protests from doctors and women's rights groups", and "Spain's Anorexia and Bulimia Association says if designers refuse to follow these voluntary restrictions the government should legislate to ban thin models.". Those were the pressure groups I was referring to.

But no matter. I think the portrayal of overweight women - and the way that people like Dawn French and Michelle McManus are held up as positive role models for young women - in contrast to the way skinny women are being othered (see 'Skeletal Spice' following last year's London Fashion Week), is relevant to this discussion. Ignominious started this thread and seems happy to talk about it. So you and I can agree to disagree about this.

14:10 / 15.09.06

I think the term 'pressure group' is often used to suggest that something isn't really legitimate. That's how your use of it comes across to me.

In this article it says:

The Spanish Association of Fashion Designers has decided to ban models who have a BMI of less than 18.

Unhealthily skinny models at last year's fashion shows led to protests from doctors and women's rights groups.

The article does not state that the association is banning models as a result of the protests last year. The two facts are only linked by way of being next to each other in the article. I have chosen not to assume that one thing is directly the result of the other, although it may have some bearing on it and indeed probably does.

15:07 / 15.09.06

If that's your way of apologising for the patronising 'I think, Susan, that if you read the article you'll find...' line, then I'll say a qualified thank you.

However, please bear in mind that it's quite hard to accommodate the idiosyncratic ways that the meaning of common terms come across to you. And with that in mind you might have looked it up, along with 'lobbying', rather than putting scare-quotes around them (a far more common way of suggesting that something isn't legitimate, you'll note).

15:17 / 15.09.06

Sorry, I replied before you edited to add the second part.

I have chosen not to assume that one thing is directly the result of the other, although it may have some bearing on it and indeed probably does.

Where did I (or anyone) say that the ban was a direct result of the protests?

15:24 / 15.09.06

And anyway, we don't have to hypothesise about why the Spanish Association of Fashion Designers instituted the ban - it tells us right there in the article:
"The association agreed to use the BMI - a calculation based on height and weight - in response to local government pressure."

18:06 / 15.09.06

The phrases 'pressure group' and 'lobbying' are your words, and do not appear in the article. The words you have chosen are quite loaded terms and imply, at least to me as a female reader, that you do not think they have a legitimate cause for protest. There are many other words you could have used, such as 'protest' - a word that does appear in the article, unlike your terms.

I'm not trying to be patronising, I just think you're presenting a bias to the article that isn't there. I'm not clear why. It seems maybe that you have some sort of issue surrounding thin people being banned since you are as you have said upthread, a thin person yourself. But the real issue is the fashion industry's problematic treatment of women in that they present the ideal size as being spectacularly thin. In the discussion we are having here, spectacularly fat is really not relevant since it doesn't occur within the fashion industry.

18:13 / 15.09.06

I should also add that if you would like an apology then by all means I apologise for upsetting you. It was not intentional. I was genuinely confused about your choice of words for the reasons I have outlined above.

19:05 / 15.09.06

Olulabelle, 'pressure group' is a perfectly ordinary way of referring to a pressure group (which is what the Anorexia and Bulimia Association appears to be), but I suppose I could have called them a 'special interest group' or 'lobbying group' if I'd known that you'd have preferred it. Although you probably would have liked 'lobby group' even less, because you seem to think that there's something wrong with lobbying.

You're right, I could have used the word 'protesting' rather than 'lobbying', but since the A&B Assoc are calling for the government to legislate if the restrictions weren't imposed voluntarily, it sounds as if lobbying is exactly what they're doing. Lobbying.

But indeed, thanks to your special female reading skills, you correctly intuited that I question the legitimacy of this particular protest (or at least the measures demanded). But instead of reading things into the words 'pressure', 'group' and 'lobbying', you might have picked that up from the fact that I've come right out and said that there's 'something troubling about only optimally healthy bodies being deemed acceptable in terms of representation like this'.

I'm not trying to present a bias to the article, I've not really said anything about the article. But yes, maybe I do have 'some sort of issue' surrounding thin people being banned since I am a thin person myself. I like to think I'd be alert to the questionable politics of this even if I wasn't thin, but yes - I'm probably more conscious of how thinness is often maligned and stigmatised, by virtue of it affecting me personally. I probably am just slightly more sensitive to this than you.

I accept your apology, but you didn't 'upset' me, you annoyed me. I hope I've clarified my choice of words.

21:57 / 15.09.06

thanks to your special female reading skills,

Well that's necessary, isn't it? I have made references to being female because I thought it was relevant to discussion in this thread but you see those references just as a way to take the piss.

Actually I'm not surprised.

I'm sorry if I have 'annoyed' you, Susan. The apology was valid for all feeling, by the way.

22:05 / 15.09.06

Just as a reference, having worked in a job that dealt with special interest and protest groups everyday, I have come to learn that the words 'pressure group' and 'lobbying' come with a great deal of baggage and as such are generally avoided within those groups. The words you choose to use are fairly derogatory words used by people like MPs and members of big business to dismiss or belittle the claims of the particular group in question.

That's not me being picky. That's how it is.

22:29 / 15.09.06

Come off it, Lula. You said:

The phrases 'pressure group' and 'lobbying' are your words, and do not appear in the article. The words you have chosen are quite loaded terms and imply, at least to me as a female reader, that you do not think they have a legitimate cause for protest

Apparently, your femaleness was relevant in that it allowed you to discern implications from the phrases 'pressure group' and 'lobbying' that you wouldn't have done otherwise.
I thought I treated that with some restraint. I didn't, for example, suggest that you being a woman meant that you had 'issues'.

I appreciate the apology though. Let's put it behind us.

So, in the interest of avoiding these misunderstandings in the future, what words should I use for interest groups and for the petitions they make?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

22:30 / 15.09.06

thanks to your special female reading skills

I need to get on this thread at some point and post something meaningful, but for now: Shut the fuck up, Susan.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

22:37 / 15.09.06

Sry, crosspost there.

Page: (1)2