Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-09-09 04:51pm

Fri Sep 8, 10:30 AM ET

MADRID (AFP) - Excessively skinny fashion models will be barred from a major Madrid fashion show later this month for fear they could send the wrong message to young Spanish girls, local media reported.

Madrid's regional government, which is co-financing the Pasarela Cibeles, has vetoed around a third of the models who took part in last year's show because they weigh too little.

The authorities collaborated with a Spanish health organisation to come up with a minumum body mass -- a height-weight ratio -- of 18 for the models.

Spanish daily ABC said it was the first time such restrictions had been imposed on a fashion show, although a recent wedding dress exhibition in Barcelona banned fashion models who took a dress size below 38 (British size 10, US size eight).

Several models at last year's show provoked a row when they claimed their careers would be under threat if they put on weight.

Organisers said they wanted to "help ensure public opinion does not associate fashion, and fashion shows in particular, with an increase in anorexia, a disease which, along with bulimia, is considered ... as a mental and behavioural problem".

The event will take place on September 18-22.

Do these thin models really incite Anorexia or is this the Government covering its ass?

Redleader34 · Post by **Redleader34** » 2006-09-09 05:35pm

This is a great idea... we could prevent the wraith culture in modern girls by simpling banning them from the runways... The free spech vs objectve harm is an open and shut case... the right for a thin model to prance on a runway, or The rigt of an inpresanable teenage girl to wonder "Am I too fat" and the media with these models screaming "YES" just my $.02

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-09-09 07:36pm

I think a minimum is a reasonable and healthy regulation of the industry, in intrest of protecting the employees (models) from dangerous standards. No one will lose their job as a model if the law applies to everyone. The potential cultural benifits are just a bonus.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-09-09 07:56pm

I consider a minimum weight to be a fully acceptable health safety standard for this business.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-09 07:59pm

Fuck yes. There's no reason this profession should be exempt from safety standards that plague every other profession.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-09-09 08:34pm

Hell yes seems about to cover it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-09 09:37pm

An added bonus is that now we get to see models with actual breasts.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-09-09 09:41pm

wolveraptor wrote:An added bonus is that now we get to see models with actual breasts.

I prefer my Wife's

slebetman · Post by **slebetman** » 2006-09-09 10:59pm

wolveraptor wrote:An added bonus is that now we get to see models with actual breasts.

I bought my wife Victoria's Secret for our honeymoon and now we regularly get the catalog full of models with actual breasts

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-09 11:56pm

Well of course models for lingerie are going to have actual breasts, but are those the kind you normally see on the catwalk, where these laws apply?

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2006-09-10 02:05am

slebetman wrote:I bought my wife Victoria's Secret for our honeymoon and now we regularly get the catalog full of models with actual breasts

The lingerie models of Victoria's secret have breasts, but a lot of them are implants because they're expected to be skinny and have boobs. That's very rarely a combination that occurs by itself. Heidi Klum, Marisa Miller, Gisele Bundchen, all implants. They're just usually very well done implants so they don't scream boobjob like a lot of the fake ones do. For example, see the woman here

Look at the woman's stick like legs and then compare it to her breasts size. There's something not quite natural about that, though whether it's airbrushing or implants I can't say.

That being said, implants or not, the women that show up in the victoria's secret catelogue are a hell of a lot more healthy looking than the ones usually seen strutting the catwalk. I hope the move by spain catches on in other places.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-09-10 06:35am

Wanderer wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:An added bonus is that now we get to see models with actual breasts.
I prefer my Wife's

All these models using your wife's breasts is not very practical, I think.

On topic: I think it's good. I'm not much into skinny women, and I certainly don't think it's healthy most of the time. Hopefully it might go some way to fight the social trend that ultra-skinny is preferable in a lot of young girls.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-10 10:06am

The lingerie models of Victoria's secret have breasts, but a lot of them are implants because they're expected to be skinny and have boobs. That's very rarely a combination that occurs by itself. Heidi Klum, Marisa Miller, Gisele Bundchen, all implants. They're just usually very well done implants so they don't scream boobjob like a lot of the fake ones do. For example, see the woman here

I've heard that silicone/saline breasts don't have the same density as real ones, and so can't be used to display how a boob would fit into whatever size bra they're displaying. Hence their lack of use in the industry. I don't have a source for it though. I agree that that women's legs are a bit off, but it might be just the lighting or angle. You barely see her legs in that photo anyways.

Redleader34 · Post by **Redleader34** » 2006-09-10 12:15pm

I think Wolvvraptop is right on this. I can rember a speical on liftime(What I watch lifetime. Sue me.) The boobs special (no joke) Said that the Victoria's secret modles are nartual due to the simple physics of breasts.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-09-10 10:19pm

Wanderer wrote:Do these thin models really incite Anorexia or is this the Government covering its ass?

In media rich nations such as we find in most of the western world it would be hard to underestimate the impact of public figures, including models, on the collective attitudes of those who see them. In runway shows in paticular the intent is to show what is fashionable and trendy, tell a bunch of teenage girls that trendy is half starved by anorexia then it will leave an impression. Ask yourself how quickly the teen and young adult market reacts to trend changes and then you realize how influential media such as ultra-thin models will cause a reaction amongst some.

Moreover there is a point of too thin. I know of at least one woman who has been skinny all her life (not due to anorexia or any eating disorder, simply her build is extremely slight) but it has caused her no end of problems. Her gynecologist has had to recommend treatments to regularize her period and address a host of other issues simply due to her low body weight so for the health of the models themselves I can say that there is definately a point of too thin.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2006-09-11 01:03am

wolveraptor wrote:I've heard that silicone/saline breasts don't have the same density as real ones, and so can't be used to display how a boob would fit into whatever size bra they're displaying. Hence their lack of use in the industry. I don't have a source for it though. I agree that that women's legs are a bit off, but it might be just the lighting or angle. You barely see her legs in that photo anyways.

You're half correct. Saline breast implants have a slightly lighter density than real breasts while silicone breast implants do have the same density (hence the fight to keep using them even though there were possible health side effects). Giving a look around the site, I haven't looked at the catelogue for years since I haven't lived in the US, I do notice they seem to be using more models that have more realistic proportions lately. That's refreshing, if a little surprising. In college, I had a dormmate whose aunt was an advertising bigwig for Victoria Secret. She had told her once that Victoria's secert stores are for women, while the catelogue is for the men.

Redleader34 wrote: I think Wolvvraptop is right on this. I can rember a speical on liftime(What I watch lifetime. Sue me.) The boobs special (no joke) Said that the Victoria's secret modles are nartual due to the simple physics of breasts.

And I've had flatmates with penchants for the women's rags.

I'm not buying it. The head of the modeling agency Gisele Bundchen worked for admited her breasts are fake. They've also had some pretty convincing before and after photos of some of the models. I know the miracles the wonderbra can produce, but some of the transformations are beyond even it's powers. Still, there are some women who hit the genetic jackpot bodywise, Tyra Banks for example.

slebetman · Post by **slebetman** » 2006-09-11 01:25am

Spin Echo wrote:She had told her once that Victoria's secert stores are for women, while the catelogue is for the men.

We don't have Victoria's Secret stores here, just the rip-off LaSenza. So the catalogue is for my wife, honest!

Still, there are some women who hit the genetic jackpot bodywise, Tyra Banks for example.

From experience I can say that Czech, Indian and English women tend to have relatively large breasts even if they're skinny. And statistically English women use larger bras (inferring larger breasts) then the rest of western Europe.

TheJewishConspiracy · Post by **TheJewishConspiracy** » 2006-09-11 02:42am

Redleader34 wrote:This is a great idea... we could prevent the wraith culture in modern girls by simpling banning them from the runways... The free spech vs objectve harm is an open and shut case... the right for a thin model to prance on a runway, or The rigt of an inpresanable teenage girl to wonder "Am I too fat" and the media with these models screaming "YES" just my $.02

I doubt that, all it will do is cause the fashion industry to find another country to show its cloths. It's not like runway shows provide the pulic of the puplicity for the stick-thin culture anyways.

Redleader34 · Post by **Redleader34** » 2006-09-13 10:14pm

By that logic Jewish consparicy, banning child labor in one country is usless beacuse other countries just do it too....

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-09-14 05:51am

Fashion industry just uses skinny models for two reasons.

First, most designers are gay and prefer boyish women.
Secondly, if they show their clothes on such skinny girls, no customer can complain about the look, because it's not the designers fault that these things don't look alike when your'e having 4 sizes more than the models.

Hell, this week, another girl died here, starved herself to dead.
I'd love to see actual women on the catwalk, not such skinny bonebags. Size 34 is considered fat among models - I know skinny girls, but they hardly wear 36, most 38 size.

I hope that models get this protection in france and italy soon, once Madrid, Mailand and Paris are having such bans, the world can get a little bit more sane.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-14 06:14am

A step in the right direction if you ask me - while there are a few genetic flukes in existance, by far the majority of runway models are too thin and they get that way by starving themselves. One should not be forced to endanger one's long term health in order to maintain employment. Construction workers wear hardhats, workers in various industries wear lung protection, and runway models need to eat. What I don't get is why there is even a debate about this.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk

Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk

Re: Madrid bans too-thin models from catwalk