This article from the New York Times about male models caught my eye today. I guess they finally realized the whole "female models are too thin!!!11" schtick got old two years ago and decided to focus on male models for a change. And like every other article ever that contains the words "thin, models, fashion" somewhere, it's riddled with hypocrisy. Of course.
Then a funny thing happened. The models were also downsized. Where the masculine ideal of as recently as 2000 was a buff 6-footer with six-pack abs, the man of the moment is an urchin, a wraith or an underfed runt.
An underfed runt? Really? So this body
that is about as easy to obtain for men as model-thin is for women is going out of style.. and that's a shame? I know way more "underfed runts" then I do guys with six-packs, and they aren't trying to be thin. Once again, it's completely fine for journalists to take jabs at thin folk and assume they don't eat properly.
“I personally think that it’s the consumer that’s doing this, and fashion is just responding,” said Kelly Cutrone, the founder of People’s Revolution, a fashion branding and production company. “No one wants a beautiful women or a beautiful man anymore.”
Whathuh?? Last week the accusation was that models were too pretty and setting an unrealistic example for women to follow leading to anorexia, depression, etc. These people change their minds too much. Also, if you look at the article, a whole three paragraphs before this quote there was a bit about how Americans have gotten "taller and heavier." So these comparatively stocky consumers are pressuring the fashion industry to make slimmer clothes.. wow, it all makes sense now.
In terms of image, the current preference is for beauty that is not fully evolved. “People are afraid to look over 21 or make any statement of what it means to be adult,” Ms. Cutrone said.
Really I have no idea what they are even trying to say here. Not fully evolved? What? Can people not be pretty until they turn 21? The fashion industry should be making statements about adulthood? I'm sure there's more good stuff in this article, but I kind of feel like throwing up in my mouth right now. (hey, maybe I'll lose some weight..)
2 comments:
Journalists are so fucking retarded. People want to be (or date, marry, fuck, father the bastard child of, etc.), the rich and famous. The rich and famous in this country are not the five-foot-ten, 230-lb thunder thighs you see frequenting the all-you-can-eat buffets.
But what really pisses me off here is that these preferences are not "fully evolved." Clearly, Ms. Cutrone does not know what the word "evolved" means. Nothing is ever "partially evolved." Evolution of any sort just means "change over time." There is no fucking "goal" to which something is trying to "evolve" to meet. It just happens, because good ideas survive, and bad ideas do not. This journalist is a bad idea.
Then again, somehow the idea crocs has held on so far. And that is a hideous idea...
Yeah after she said the stuff about beauty not being fully evolved I just gave up on the article. It makes no sense whatsoever.
..oh no, don't get me started on the whole crocs issue...
Post a Comment