Plus size model Crystal Renn walks for Zac Posen in NY Fashion Week!

Jules · 13-09-2010 12:20am #1

Plus size model my arse, im sorry but if this is what we are calling plus size these days... im really at a loss!

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2010/09/11/crystal-renn-on-walking-for-zac-posen-im-freaking-out/

rainbow kirby · 13-09-2010 12:23am

I would love to know how looking like a normal, curvy, beautiful woman became "plus size".

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 12:37am

Err..she's lost loads of weight. She used to be considered "plus size". She isn't really anymore...judging by that picture anyway!

Jules · 13-09-2010 12:38am

Im not one for calling obviously overweight person curvey. I make no qualms about it, im fat but come on! This is not a plus size model. I would consider her...

a plus size model

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 1:26am

She used to look like this:

Then she was all "nahh, no more anorexia for me!". And decided she wanted to write a book on the pressures of staying thin in the fashion industry and went onto this:

(which would be considered plus size I guess)

and now by the looks of it she's gone all skinny again.

that's her during the summer.

So, meh.

krudler · 13-09-2010 1:34am

Middle pic ftw, go curvy girls!

"plus size" I mean...really?

Greentopia · 13-09-2010 1:52am

Lia_lia wrote: »

She used to look like this:

Then she was all "nahh, no more anorexia for me!". And decided she wanted to write a book on the pressures of staying thin in the fashion industry and went onto this:

(which would be considered plus size I guess)

and now by the looks of it she's gone all skinny again.

that's her during the summer.

So, meh.

The obvious difference in the second and third photo's has been discussed in blogs and web sites. The third set of photos were manipulated and photo shopped and she was rightly surprised and pissed off about it.

Jules · 13-09-2010 2:14am

This isnt about her photos, this is about her being referred to as a "plus size model" when, IMO, she isn't!

Wibbs · 13-09-2010 7:41am

Greentopia wrote: »

The obvious difference in the second and third photo's has been discussed in blogs and web sites. The third set of photos were manipulated and photo shopped and she was rightly surprised and pissed off about it.

Fair enough, but from the article where she's all triumphant about being a standard bearer for plus sized women..

That's a harder shot to manipulate and bodyfat wise she's far more the third photo than the the second in Lia_lia's examples.

She was brave enough to speak out in the first place in an industry that's so up its own arse, that the obvious isnt obvious. Especially for a young woman in an industry that has a habit of chewing them up and spitting them out while looking for the next bit of meat, or bones, to hang their clothes on. However I do think because she's in the industry, probably from a very early and formative age, their warped sense of what is "plus sized" has transferred to her.

13-09-2010 7:41am

Wiki says she is a 16 which is plus size I suppose (isnt that supposed to be anything over 14?) but there's no way she is a 16 in that pic?

Macha · 13-09-2010 8:52am

If you are a size 16 and 6 foot tall, it will look very different from someone who is a size 15 and 5 foot tall. Having said that, she still doesn't look like a size 16 in the above photo.

She has said that she recently lost weight because she started exercising again.

Nevyn · 13-09-2010 8:55am

Anything over an american size 12 (which is a 10) is considered plus size.
So if the wiki says she is a 16(usa) then she is a 14(uk).

13-09-2010 8:59am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Anything over an american size 12 (which is a 10) is considered plus size.
So if the wiki says she is a 16(usa) then she is a 14(uk).

Nah I was quoting the UK size
Dress size (US) 12 ; (EU) 42 ; (UK) 16

I'm surprised you say a US 12 is UK 10, because I find there IS a 2 size difference and from what I remember US sizes are labelled smaller than ours e.g. size 0 is our UK size 4

Piste · 13-09-2010 1:29pm

Jules wrote: »

This isnt about her photos, this is about her being referred to as a "plus size model" when, IMO, she isn't!

At size 16 she's a plus size model, by model standards, but not really a plus size woman, as everything seems to be nicely proportioned.

princess-lala · 13-09-2010 1:36pm

Plus size where? Shes teeny!

This whole "plus size" modelling is unbelievable - like we are looking at normal women modelling "plus size" clothes!!

A normal woman these days can vary from a size 8 - 20 and still look good! This isn't healthy to tell that woman shes a plus size model when shes totally not!

shellyboo · 13-09-2010 4:26pm

Piste wrote: »

At size 16 she's a plus size model, by model standards, but not really a plus size woman, as everything seems to be nicely proportioned.

Exactly. To be a plus-size model you have to be a size 18 max. When most people would barely consider size 16 to be plus-size. Thought this was common knowledge actually, bit shocked that people are puzzled by it. It's clear that "normal"-sized models aren't anywhere near average-sized, why would plus-sized models be representative of plus-size women either?

If you want a laugh actually, have a look at the Asos plus-size collection. Click into any item and watch the "catwalk" video of a plus-size model in the clothes. Every piece of clothing is *hanging* off the model because the range starts at a size 20 and god forbid they'd hire someone THAT FAT to be on their site.

shellyboo · 13-09-2010 4:31pm

Oh, but about Renn on the catwalk - I think it's fantastic. Any acknowledgement by the fashion industry that non-skinny women exist is a massive forward stride, in my opinion. Things really are getting better - Italian Vogue hired a fat fashion blogger to do their video blog recently, and Marc Jacobs is apparently bringing out a plus size range. Things might not be perfect yet, but they are changing, and that's a good thing.

Chuchoter · 13-09-2010 5:35pm

I don't want to sound horrible, but she is way bigger (she's still gorgeous like) than most models. By plus sized they do not mean fat, they mean average sized-thin person. The woman who plays Joan Holloway on mad men is plus-sized, Beth Ditto is fat. Theres a difference.

Jules · 13-09-2010 5:37pm

Personally i don't think its fantastic, cuz the only thing that is plus size about her in that picture is probably the cost of the jumpsuit!

Yes Beth Ditto is overweight, but plus size is not average sized thin person. That would be.. average sized. Way i see it there are a few catagories...

Extremely Under sized
Under sized
Averaged Sized
Plus Sized
and Over sized and in no way am i saying that over sized is good, but to have this heralded as a success for plus size women is an insult. She is not a plus size woman. No, she is not under sized like the majority of models, she to me would be an averaqed sized woman.

Extremely Undersized

Under sized

Average sized
Mark_Fast_show_15c2.jpg?adImageId=3268503&imageId=6562784

Plus Size

Over sized

What worries me the most is that i have two neices, 4 and 6 and im deathly scared that they will grow up thinking that the first two images are what a normal woman should look like. I know being overweight is not healthy and is not a good role model for children, but jesus neither is being under weight. I want them to grown up in a world that the only thing that defines you is your personality. Not what size skirt you can fit it. I might be looking for a perfect world but all i can do is hope that they will be happy in their own skin.

panda100 · 13-09-2010 7:53pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Anything over an american size 12 (which is a 10) is considered plus size.
So if the wiki says she is a 16(usa) then she is a 14(uk).

I think really at the end of the day clothes sizes are an inconsistent approach to sizing people. I take Size 14 trousers and skirts,which would make me plus size in the modelling industry, but at 6' I look quite skinny.
I see plus size as normal,healthy size.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 7:58pm

Lia_lia wrote: »

Then she was all "nahh, no more anorexia for me!"..

That's pretty insensitive towards people who are actually anorexic and people who just happen to be slim but get classified as anorexic by people with no knowledge of what anorexia is.

rainbow kirby · 13-09-2010 8:00pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's pretty insensitive towards people who are actually anorexic and people who just happen to be slim but get classified as anorexic by people with no knowledge of what anorexia is.

Crystal Renn did actually have an eating disorder though.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 8:00pm

Jules wrote: »

This isnt about her photos, this is about her being referred to as a "plus size model" when, IMO, she isn't!

She is. If she is larger than most models she is a plus sized model. Her size in relation to the general population is irrelevant. The fashion industry has never claimed to be a representation of the average person and has no responsibility to do so.

Jules · 13-09-2010 8:01pm

I think the fact that she is well know to be open about the fact that she had an eating disorder she has every right to say what she wants about being anorexic.

And, Sugarhigh, there in lies the problem. The fashion industry has a huge responsibility, whether they want to admit it or not. For years they have shown an unreal version of what a woman should be.

Greentopia · 13-09-2010 8:16pm

Jules wrote: »

This isnt about her photos, this is about her being referred to as a "plus size model" when, IMO, she isn't!

I understand that, but the photos were posted and I was just pointing out that the third set of photos were not as they appeared.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 8:20pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Crystal Renn did actually have an eating disorder though.

How that does that make it any less insensitive to say she simply decided to no longer have an eating disorder?

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 8:21pm

Jules wrote: »

I think the fact that she is well know to be open about the fact that she had an eating disorder she has every right to say what she wants about being anorexic.

And, Sugarhigh, there in lies the problem. The fashion industry has a huge responsibility, whether they want to admit it or not. For years they have shown an unreal version of what a woman should be.

The only responsibility the fashion industry has is to it's share holders.

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 8:24pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's pretty insensitive towards people who are actually anorexic and people who just happen to be slim but get classified as anorexic by people with no knowledge of what anorexia is.

But she was anorexic. She said it herself. I was just making a lighthearted comment.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 8:27pm

Lia_lia wrote: »

But she was anorexic. She said it herself. I was just making a lighthearted comment.

What difference does this make to your comment?

Just because she gained some weight doesn't mean she no longer has anorexia and she couldn't simply decide to "Nah no more anorexia for me".

Jules · 13-09-2010 8:34pm

and that is the closed minded point of view that has thousands of boys and girls starving themselves and making themselves throw up. It disgusts me.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 8:46pm

Jules wrote: »

and that is the closed minded point of view that has thousands of boys and girls starving themselves and making themselves throw up. It disgusts me.

Explain?

Jules · 13-09-2010 8:49pm

Think that the only responsibility the fashion industry has is to its shareholders and bottom line. In my opinion, its horrible. Millions of people read the magazines etc and see what they consider average and it's unhealthy.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 9:00pm

Jules wrote: »

Think that the only responsibility the fashion industry has is to its shareholders and bottom line. In my opinion, its horrible. Millions of people read the magazines etc and see what they consider average and it's unhealthy.

If it's unhealthy then maybe they should consider not reading them?

Why should a business who is doing nothing wrong have to change because of how some people perceive or use their product. If people read magazines and then change how they live their life based on what they have seen then it's their own fault not the producers who are only filling a demand.

Should they have to print warnings like "Do not try to emulate the physiques you see in this magazine.

The magazines are towards an audience who clearly like whats in them, why should they change just because you don't like them?

There is nothing immoral about showing an image of a slim attractive person and no reason why they should be forced to balance it out when it's not what the audience want.

13-09-2010 9:11pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

If it's unhealthy then maybe they should consider not reading them?
Why should a business who is doing nothing wrong have to change because of how some people perceive or use their product.

lol you make it sound like they're innocently trying to mind their own business rather than influencing and setting world fashion trends

they're kind of in the business of influencing how people perceive and use their product :pac:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 13-09-2010 9:15pm

do people not have parents anymore? you can't just blame every industry on the planet because young people are idiots. fashion models are there to model clothes, not to make people feel good about themselves.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 9:15pm

bluewolf wrote: »

lol you make it sound like they're innocently trying to mind their own business rather than influencing and setting world fashion trends

they're kind of in the business of influencing how people perceive and use their product :pac:

So?

That doesn't put them in the wrong if someone who isn't as attractive as one of their models feels inferior.

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 9:20pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

What difference does this make to your comment?

Just because she gained some weight doesn't mean she no longer has anorexia and she couldn't simply decide to "Nah no more anorexia for me".

Oh for goodness sakes I was clearly taking the piss.

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 9:22pm

Lia_lia wrote: »

Oh for goodness sakes I was clearly taking the piss.

Which is the problem.

Greentopia · 13-09-2010 9:25pm

shellyboo wrote: »

Oh, but about Renn on the catwalk - I think it's fantastic. Any acknowledgement by the fashion industry that non-skinny women exist is a massive forward stride, in my opinion. Things really are getting better - Italian Vogue hired a fat fashion blogger to do their video blog recently, and Marc Jacobs is apparently bringing out a plus size range. Things might not be perfect yet, but they are changing, and that's a good thing.

I'd love to believe that there is actually real change happening but I don't think there is.
I think they're just using a few token 'plus sized' models to give the impression that they're taking criticism about the fashion industry's use of unhealthily skinny models seriously and they want to be seen to do something about it.

I think it's no more than a sop to avoid having to make real systemic change in the industry.
Even if they employ a dozen more Crystal Renn's the vast majority of the models will still be size zero (or less) to 4 (U.S) because it takes a lot more work to make clothes to fit "plus" sizes than the no curves models, and it's just easier for them to design all for the few tiny sizes because they don't have to include the boning, darts, seaming and so on to give the support that many bigger models need, especially for evening dresses for example.
Not that that's any valid excuse.

They'd also say it takes more work in the sense that to be able to accentuate and flatter curvier women's bodies and make their clothes look as good on them as they feel they do on the skinny clothes hanger models takes more care and thought (from the designers viewpoint where their concern is all about the aesthetics of the line of the clothes on the models and how the clothes hang).

That's why designers only have those very small sample sizes available to loan to Hollywood actresses for red carpet events (most of whom are so tiny they do fit into those sizes anyway).
You've heard about Mad Men's Christina Hendrick's recently complaining (and rightly so) that no designer would lend her a dress for the Emmy's until Zac Posen stepped in finally? That's why.

She's somewhere between a U.K. size 14 or 16, depending on who you believe so she was outside who the fashion industry designs for.

I may be accused of being a cynic for saying this but I believe also (and Karl Lagerfeld actually said this a while ago) that the top fashion houses like Chanel, LV, Calvin Klein, et al simply do not want "fat" women wearing their clothes, full stop. I believe they feel it somehow takes away some of the cache of the clothes if more than the skinny rich and famous can fit into them and the "chip eating couch potatoes" as KL so contemptuously and disdainfully put it :mad: could buy them if they were made available in bigger sizes.

And if that's true then why do so many women strive to want to buy their poxy clothes anyway?

I tell ya, even if I had the money for those designer clothes (which I don't) I still wouldn't buy them because of the misogynistic and disdainful way many of them treat women.

I make a lot of my own clothes and if I won the lotto in the morning I still would (though the materials would be better

) and I'd continue to support designers and brands that are ethically sourced and made, and which respect all women equally by making their clothes available in more than the restrictive 8-16 sizes.

Oh and BTW I'm not overweight myself so I have no axe to grind because these designer clothes don't fit me. I'm a 5'5" 7 stone 10lbs size 8-10 U.K.

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 9:26pm

Which is the problem.

Why? Why do we have to be so serious about everything?

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 9:36pm

Lia_lia wrote: »

Why? Why do we have to be so serious about everything?

Why is sometimes ok to take the piss out of a group and not other times?

If I entered a thread about homosexuality and suggested they could just stop being gay if they wanted to I would be ripped apart.

There has been a lot of insults thrown at slim women in this thread(referencing them as coat hanger etc) that wouldn't be accepted if it was aimed at overweight women.

Jules · 13-09-2010 9:39pm

Think they were referring to all models as coat hangers. Not just skinny models.

Greentopia · 13-09-2010 9:48pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Their (sic) has been a lot of insults thrown at slim women in this thread(referencing them as coat hanger etc) that wouldn't be accepted if it was aimed at overweight women.

I used that phrase because that's how a lot of the top designers see their underweight models-as glorified clothes hangers.
They care not a jot about the welfare of the models or the many young girls and women around the world who starve themselves to try to emulate the models they see in fashion shows and in magazines because that's what they're told the beauty ideal looks like.
They've totally abdicated any responsibility for the part they play in rising levels of anorexia and other eating disorders. They care only about their share-holders and the bottom line as Jules mentioned already.
It's despicable and a-moral I believe.

Piste · 13-09-2010 9:53pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Which is the problem.

I think you're being overly-sensitive.

Lia_lia · 13-09-2010 9:57pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why is sometimes ok to take the piss out of a group and not other times?

If I entered a thread about homosexuality and suggested they could just stop being gay if they wanted to I would be ripped apart.

Yes but I said it in a lighthearted way and didn't think it would be taken so seriously. I obviously know that someone can't just stop having anorexia. Doesn't everybody know that?

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 10:00pm

Greentopia wrote: »

I used that phrase because that's how a lot of the top designers see their underweight models-as glorified clothes hangers.
They care not a jot about the welfare of the models or the many young girls and women around the world who starve themselves to try to emulate the models they see in fashion shows and in magazines because that's what they're told the beauty ideal looks like.
They've totally abdicated any responsibility for the part they play in m rising levels of anorexia and other eating disorders. They care only about their share-holders and the bottom line as Jules mentioned already.
It's despicable and a-moral I believe.

that's how a lot of the top designers see their underweight models-as glorified clothes hangers.

Their job is to wear clothes, what do you want the employer to do?

They care not a jot about the welfare of the models

I'm sure they care about their employees just as much as your standard employer. It's not a necessity to starve yourself to be a model, some people are naturally slim. If someone who isn't naturally slim starves them self in an attempt to be slim it's 100% their own responsibility. If a freelance journalist decided to work 18 hour work days to the detriment of his health you wouldn't put the responsibility on the people who buy his stories would you.

Also your use of [sic] was just pointless as what you quoted is in a nice quote box.:)

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 10:02pm

Piste wrote: »

I think you're being overly-sensitive.

So in which cases is it ok to make light of serious diseases?

Catari Jaguar · 13-09-2010 10:06pm

Jules wrote: »

Average sized

I class her as overweight.

Jules wrote: »

Over sized

Displaying this on a catwalk is as irresponsible as displaying an model with anorexia.

There are so many body shapes. A woman with narrow hips and a flat chest does not have curves, not every one is pear shaped or hour glass. I hate this curvy term. I for one, don't associate curves with rolls of fat.

I wish they'd just show some girls with a healthy BMI and some muscle tone.

Tyra Banks told a model on ANTM that she was too muscular and looked like an athlete getting a photo taken instead of a model. wtf is that?!!

SugarHigh · 13-09-2010 10:13pm

cherub rock wrote: »

I class her as overweight.

Displaying this on a catwalk is as irresponsible as displaying an model with anorexia.

There are so many body shapes. A woman with narrow hips and a flat chest does not have curves, not every one is pear shaped or hour glass. I hate this curvy term. I for one, don't associate curves with rolls of fat.

I wish they'd just show some girls with a healthy BMI and some muscle tone.

Tyra Banks told a model on ANTM that she was too muscular and looked like an athlete getting a photo taken instead of a model. wtf is that?!!

I class her as overweight.

Definitely.

I for one, don't associate curves with rolls of fat.

Also agree on this, it's clearly a disingenuous attempt at being nice.

I wish they'd just show some girls with a healthy BMI and some muscle tone.

While a lot of people would like this I don't think the fashion industry should be forced to do it. If designers don't want to spend their time making clothes for overweight people why they be forced to?
If fashion magazines want to print pictures of slim people then why shouldn't they? It's their magazine.

yra Banks told a model on ANTM that she was too muscular and looked like an athlete getting a photo taken instead of a model. wtf is that?!!

She obviously had an image in her head of what she wanted so I don't see whats wrong with that. It's also possible that someone else would have been to slim for the image she was looking for. Either way it's her show and it's up to her who goes through so she can pick people based on any criteria she likes.

rainbow kirby · 13-09-2010 10:14pm

cherub rock wrote: »

I wish they'd just show some girls with a healthy BMI and some muscle tone.

You're far more likely to see that in running and triathlon magazines, tbh.

Jules · 13-09-2010 10:14pm

And i do believe i said that being over sized isnt healthy, and never said it was ok for and person who has a weight problem, be it too much or too little to be on a catwalk.

And seriously you class her as overweight?

And do people bother reading posts at all?

Plus size model Crystal Renn walks for Zac Posen in NY Fashion Week!

Comments