fuller figure shop mannequins

Morag

How nice would it be to go shopping and see mannequins like that?

One shop in sweden has these two on display.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-swedish-mannequins-20130318,0,4424401.story

PhysiologyRocks

Morag wrote: »

How nice would it be to go shopping and see mannequins like that?

One shop in sweden has these two on display.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-swedish-mannequins-20130318,0,4424401.story

I think that it'd be nice to see a variation in mannequin shapes - different people are different sizes, and at the very least they'd give people an idea of how clothes might suit their shape.

However, I wouldn't replace the smaller ones altogether, because plenty of people are very slim. I know you didn't mention anything about this, but I hate references to "curvy" or "real" women with the intention of implying that slimmer women aren't real.

I generally do appreciate and agree with the intention behind them.

However, those particular ones look quite a bit more human than most mannequins (not because of size), and that's mildly alarming. :eek:

The Big Red Button

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

However, those particular ones look quite a bit more human than most mannequins (not because of size), and that's mildly alarming. :eek:

It's the knees. Those ones have normal gammy-looking knees, which most of us do. But mannequins' knees are always oddly smooth.

Creepy, so it is!!

:pac:

Freaskishly life like!

I'd kill to have a figure like that.

Great idea, like PhysiologyRocks says, it would be good if they catered for varying sizes.

sillymoo

I think they are a great idea but would look much better without the socks!

sillymoo

sillymoo wrote: »

I think they are a great idea but would look much better without the socks!

Maybe they have ugly feet

How so Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they have ugly feet

Who wears socks with their lingerie, though?
I'll just put on this sexy bra and Knicks so I feel wonderful about myself. And the socks too, now I'm doubling or tripling my sex appeal!

Morag

They are in a shop in Sweden where it is colder then here, maybe they would look wrong with out socks up there.

How so Joe

Morag wrote: »

They are in a shop in Sweden where it is colder then here, maybe they would look wrong with out socks up there.

Apparently more women reach orgasm with socks on than without, I'm sure I read that somewhere this week.

They are nice mannequins though - most shop mannequins are a size 8 and have B cup boobs, or something like that.

I'm still not sold on the socks.

Legs.Eleven

I like them. One thing I've noticed here in Spain is how the mannequins are slimmer than the ones in Ireland. The average woman here would be smaller than Ireland but still, the mannequins seem even thinner. As a woman with a more Irish body (10), I think subliminally it bugs me. They seem so impossibly slim to me.

On a more practical level, I have no idea how the clothes would look on a woman with a bit more meat on her bones like me. I understand using very slim models to sell Haut Coiture but in the shop surely the idea is to show you how the clothes might look on you so you'd be inclined to try them on and in turn, buying them but instead I ignore them knowing that it's not going to look anything like me. A bit more variation in the sizes would be nice instead of just one supposed "standard" size (which most women aren't)

Wibbs

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

On a more practical level, I have no idea how the clothes would look on a woman with a bit more meat on her bones like me. I understand using very slim models to sell Haut Coiture but in the shop surely the idea is to show you how the clothes might look on you so you'd be inclined to try them on and in turn, buying them but instead I ignore them knowing that it's not going to look anything like me. A bit more variation in the sizes would be nice instead of just one supposed "standard" size (which most women aren't)

This in a big way. It makes no obvious business sense to me at all. You would think given people vary so much that having a spread of sizes, never mind shapes to judge what X garment would look like on you. Never mind the "standard size" is anything but. It's very much an outlier. Its bad enough the guff ye have to go through with sizes that aren't consistent. Where a 14 in one shop/manufacturer is a 10 in another and vice versa. I've looked at wardrobes of girlfriends and wondered were they growing and shrinking when I wasn't looking.

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

This in a big way. It makes no obvious business sense to me at all. You would think given people vary so much that having a spread of sizes, never mind shapes to judge what X garment would look like on you. Never mind the "standard size" is anything but. It's very much an outlier. Its bad enough the guff ye have to go through with sizes that aren't consistent. Where a 14 in one shop/manufacturer is a 10 in another and vice versa. I've looked at wardrobes of girlfriends and wondered were they growing and shrinking when I wasn't looking.

Fashion industry sells aspiration not reality.

I like the mannequins but I don't think there will be many of them around anytime soon. Btw even those mannequins are hourglass figure.

homemadecider

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw even those mannequins are hourglass figure.

This was my first thought too. I know lots of women who are bigger sizes but none of them look remotely like that mannequin; they are more likely to have big bellies and chubby arms etc. I don't think this mannequin will show many women what clothes will look like on them, as most larger women don't look anything like this.

beks101

meeeeh wrote: »

Fashion industry sells aspiration not reality.

Karl Lagerfield said it: fashion is all to do with "dreams and illusions, and no-one wants to see round women".

Granted he's one of fashion's more vocal / bitchy/insufferable designers, but he does speak to a truth that just exists on the catwalk / in most clothes stores that no amount of "Dove's real women" campaigns will change.

Most designers will tell you that the clothes are usually better showcased on linear bodies, smaller frames that don't account for the actual lumps and bumps that will get in the way of how the garment was intended to fall (unless they're designing specifically for plus sizes etc)

And that's the dream that you're sold when you walk into a store and come face to face with a display of tall, slim, straight-up-and-down mannequins with clothes hanging off them effortlessly.

I found it easier to dress when I was at my lowest weight, minus the boobs, hips and bum. I didn't have to worry about the fashion "no-gos" that I always had to avoid because they were unflattering - like crew necks or plunging neck lines...good god the boobage!:eek:

So I think these "real women" mannequins (a fair bit smaller than the average women in most western countries at that) might become at best something of a novelty in fashion stores, but ultimately they'd just upset the apple cart too much to ever take over as the new norm. There's too many vested interests and too much of a perception challenge in the industry for that to change any time soon.

Madam_X

The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.

Madam_X

Madam_X wrote: »

The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.

Is she smaller or is she just further away? :P

Each time I look at the one closer I envy her (I know she's not real >.<), that's the exact figure I'd love. Slim, but curvy.

rainbow kirby

In terms of getting an idea of what clothes actually look like on, the front one in the pic would be very helpful from my point of view - it looks fairly similar to my body shape. Seeing the clothes on a size 6-8/B cup frame gives me about as much information about seeing them on a hanger.

Probably never going to be widespread though, for literally every reason that beks101 stated.

IvyTheTerrible

I think if they made mannequins that most clothes from high street shops looked well on, they would look really weird. Have you ever actually looked at the back of shop mannequins? The clothes are often clipped and pinned to make them fit properly! They don't even fit the "ideal" mannequin, how are they supposed to look good on a "real" woman (be she thin or curvy!)?

I'd like to see some small mannequins that aren't 'children'!

Size-ism isn't just dress size, it's height too.

meeeeh

It would be interesting to see comparisons how clothes would be selling depending on size of mannequins. Two xxxx chain shops in two similar shopping centres with similar turnover, same clothes on different size mannequins. I still think that we don't necessary want to see reality. It's ridiculous to use size 6 mannequins if you are selling plus size clothing though.

Das Kitty

A few years ago I was doing a lot of sewing and making garments. The difference between a garment off the peg and one that's made to fit your body is phenomenal.

I don't think there would be enough mannequins in the world to adequately cover the vast and varying body shapes and sizes of women. Even if a mannequin shares my dress-size and my height, it's still going to look completely different on the doll than it is on me.

I do think it's nice to see different sizes and shapes represented, but no mannequin is gong to tell me how good or bad an item of clothing is going to look on my body.

I'd love to do a top-up sewing course on alterations. I have a basic knowledge but it could be better.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

kylith

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That reminds me of a remark I heard when I was watching Project Catwalk a few years back; there was a challenge involving plus-sized (i.e. normal sized) models, and one of the contestants was complaining about how hard it was to tailor clothes for her because her breasts ruined the hang of the clothes. I wanted so badly to be able to reach through the TV and slap them, and point out that most women have bigger breasts than that model did, and if they found it hard to make clothes for actual women rather than the skinny malinkas you see on catwalks then they'd better rethink their career choice.

Someone said to me once that they put the blame for skinny, curveless models on gay male designers in the fashion industry. Their reasoning was that because gay men don't find women attractive, so they subconsciously design for what they are attracted to; thin people with narrow hips and no boobs. I don't know enough about the prevalence of gay designers to be able to make a cogent argument one way or the other, but I do think that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of men designing women's clothing, and I do wonder how this impacts on trends, both in clothing and in body types.

eviltwin

kylith wrote: »

Someone said to me once that they put the blame for skinny, curveless models on gay male designers in the fashion industry. Their reasoning was that because gay men don't find women attractive, so they subconsciously design for what they are attracted to; thin people with narrow hips and no boobs. I don't know enough about the prevalence of gay designers to be able to make a cogent argument one way or the other, but I do think that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of men designing women's clothing, and I do wonder how this impacts on trends, both in clothing and in body types.

I read a really interesting book a few years back called Fashion Babylon which said this exact thing. Designers want to showcase their designs in a way that they feel shows it to their best so will go for what they feel is the most beautiful body to showcase it. As it is they tend to go for boyish figures. I think if you look at most of the cases where a "normal" sized model has been on a catwalk its usually for a female designer.

Legs.Eleven

They have models as young as 16 (with a load of make up caked on to look older) modelling clothes for women for the love of Jesus! Says it all. Over 22 and you're past it for catwalk modelling. We should constantly remind ourselves as this and not fall for this shenanigans. Fook'em.

TheBellJar

eviltwin wrote: »

I read a really interesting book a few years back called Fashion Babylon which said this exact thing. Designers want to showcase their designs in a way that they feel shows it to their best so will go for what they feel is the most beautiful body to showcase it. As it is they tend to go for boyish figures. I think if you look at most of the cases where a "normal" sized model has been on a catwalk its usually for a female designer.

I've heard before that in the case of the catwalk models etc., designers opt for 'clothes hanger' bodies so that there is nothing to detract from the clothes. I think it does make sense when you think about it; if Kelly Brook was walking down a catwalk in a low cut dress would it really be the clothes you'd be looking at?!

Babooshka

Madam_X wrote: »

The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.

Agree with you.

And why are mannequins arms twice as thin as most women's? Lots of size 6-8 women have way bigger arms than the twigs they stick on mannequins....it's all about the aesthetics. I also think the one closer up has wayyy longer a neck than any woman would have, and the head looks too small for the rest of it.

kylith

TheBellJar wrote: »

I've heard before that in the case of the catwalk models etc., designers opt for 'clothes hanger' bodies so that there is nothing to detract from the clothes. I think it does make sense when you think about it; if Kelly Brook was walking down a catwalk in a low cut dress would it really be the clothes you'd be looking at?!

I can't imagine that too many people at a fashion show would find themselves completely distracted by boobs, unless they were falling out of the dress. Do you find yourself unable to concentrate if you see a woman in a low cut dress?

TheBellJar

kylith wrote: »

I can't imagine that too many people at a fashion show would find themselves completely distracted by boobs, unless they were falling out of the dress. Do you find yourself unable to concentrate if you see a woman in a low cut dress?

Not really what I was getting at. The idea is that a curvy body is going to be noticed (and rightly so), but that's not what designers want - the model is simply a hanger they use to display their work.

kylith

TheBellJar wrote: »

Not really what I was getting at. The idea is that a curvy body is going to be noticed (and rightly so), but that's not what designers want - the model is simply a hanger they use to display their work.

But various supermodels are absolutely drop dead gorgeous. They're noted for it in fact. Why wouldn't designers worry about Heidi Klum's or Kate Moss' face distracting from the clothes? I just can't wrap my head around this idea that a feminine female body would in some way detract from the clothes rather than accentuate them. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to say that by having a woman with curves on the catwalk everyone would be too busy saying 'phwoar' to look at the frock. If models could be such a distraction then why not just send the clothes down the runway on mannequins?

TheBellJar

kylith wrote: »

But various supermodels are absolutely drop dead gorgeous. They're noted for it in fact. Why wouldn't designers worry about Heidi Klum's or Kate Moss' face distracting from the clothes? I just can't wrap my head around this idea that a feminine female body would in some way detract from the clothes rather than accentuate them. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to say that by having a woman with curves on the catwalk everyone would be too busy saying 'phwoar' to look at the frock. If models could be such a distraction then why not just send the clothes down the runway on mannequins?

Their faces have nothing to do with it. It's not primarily to do with the 'phwoar' factor either; it's a comment I read once that I agree with - which is that the curvy female form can detract the eye from the clothes, which in my opinion is true.

SBWife

I was probably close to the one on the right before I lost weight; but despite portraying an overweight person it's not close to a normal figure, most women with thighs that size are going to have a bit of a belly and not sport the indentations near the waist featured on the mannequin.

Hoboo

Its now getting to the stage if someones anything below a size 12 they're not 'normal' or 'real'. But according to whom ?

SBWife

Hoboo wrote: »

Its now getting to the stage if someones anything below a size 12 they're not 'normal' or 'real'. But according to whom ?

The maniquin on the right appears to be larger than a size 12, once you get to that size it's highly unlikely that a flat stomach accompanies such robust thighs.

The smaller maniquin to me seems more realistic.

Hoboo

SBWife wrote: »

The maniquin on the right appears to be larger than a size 12, once you get to that size it's highly unlikely that a flat stomach accompanies such robust thighs.

The smaller maniquin to me seems more realistic.

Yeah I agree with you, although depending on age, build etc. I've known girls in who are just 'big' girls, big thighs hips and bum and a flat tummy. Fit as, but just their genetics.

Listen everyones different, and no matter what you do you cant have 1000 mannequins to suit everyone.

My point however was more of an observation of this thread and some of the posts, and society in general. If people continually referred to a size 10 as being normal and real, people over size 14 would be up in arms.

But its ok the other way around ? Slim girls have feelings too, I dont think any group has the right to claim to be normal or real. I think its just a way for those who feel unhappy or discontented with themselves to continue to do nothing about it, and not only that, but try and make another group feel inferior or not 'normal' so they feel better about themselves. Its terrible.

Twee.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I think if they made mannequins that most clothes from high street shops looked well on, they would look really weird. Have you ever actually looked at the back of shop mannequins? The clothes are often clipped and pinned to make them fit properly! They don't even fit the "ideal" mannequin, how are they supposed to look good on a "real" woman (be she thin or curvy!)?

I find A Wear the worst for this. The clothes are pulled reaaallly tight on the back of the mannequins. I worked in Topshop and we never did that.

kylith

TheBellJar wrote: »

Their faces have nothing to do with it. It's not primarily to do with the 'phwoar' factor either; it's a comment I read once that I agree with - which is that the curvy female form can detract the eye from the clothes, which in my opinion is true.

Would you happen to remember where you saw it? Reading it in context might help me understand exactly what it is you're saying because, honestly, the idea that a curvy woman would distract from clothing makes no sense to me. The only thing I can think of is, as I said, the idea that people would be ogling her and, frankly, I'd expect people working in the fashion industry to be able to focus on the clothing especially when their average customer is more like Kelly Brook in shape than like a stereotypical model.

Larianne

I don't like them as they look too life-like (face and body, softer features or something) and I'm always afraid mannequins will come to life.

I don't tend to notice mannequins to be honest. They usually are in awkward positions with weird hand and knee angles. I look at the clothes and it is not until I try the clothing item on, will I get an idea if something suits me or not.

OT: I hate this 'real' women shíte. If you're overweight you're overweight. Saying that person is a 'real' women like that is normalising overweightness and obesity. It's very rare that a person who's a size 14 is also a healthy weight, even if they're six foot. It's the exact same if someone is underweight, although that isn't turning into an epidemic and causing serious problems to the healthcare system.

Everyone's a real woman ffs!

TheBellJar

kylith wrote: »

Would you happen to remember where you saw it? Reading it in context might help me understand exactly what it is you're saying because, honestly, the idea that a curvy woman would distract from clothing makes no sense to me. The only thing I can think of is, as I said, the idea that people would be ogling her and, frankly, I'd expect people working in the fashion industry to be able to focus on the clothing especially when their average customer is more like Kelly Brook in shape than like a stereotypical model.

It makes perfect sense to me. The fashion is the focus, not the model - the model is merely a tool in displaying the clothes.

Not sure where I saw it and to be honest don't have the time to look - but you work away if it's of interest!

Like I said, just something I read and agree with!

eviltwin

Larianne wrote: »

OT: I hate this 'real' women shíte. If you're overweight you're overweight. Saying that person is a 'real' women like that is normalising overweightness and obesity. It's very rare that a person who's a size 14 is also a healthy weight, even if they're six foot. It's the exact same if someone is underweight, although that isn't turning into an epidemic and causing serious problems to the healthcare system.

Everyone's a real woman ffs!

I hate it too. I know its rooted in a good cause, trying to make bigger women feel a bit better about themselves in the face of a fashion and beauty industry that tends to make them feel worthless but its backfired big time.

I do think you're comment about size 14 is a bit misguided...why do people constantly get hung up on a number ? I have pairs of size 14 jeans that are hanging off me and others the same size I can't button up. The sizes tend to be quite different depending on where you shop. We need to get away from the idea that a label on our clothes is a measure of our overall health

username123

eviltwin wrote: »

I do think you're comment about size 14 is a bit misguided...why do people constantly get hung up on a number ?

I agree. I have to wear a 14 in dresses because Ive big boobs. I actually went up a bra size from swimming but jeans Ive owned for 7 years are still a perfect fit.

kylith

TheBellJar wrote: »

It makes perfect sense to me. The fashion is the focus, not the model - the model is merely a tool in displaying the clothes.

Not sure where I saw it and to be honest don't have the time to look - but you work away if it's of interest!

Like I said, just something I read and agree with!

But if the model is a tool for displaying the clothes then a curvy model would more accurately represent what the clothes would look like on the average woman. A stick-thin model is about as useful to me, when trying to envisage what the clothes would look like on, as having them on a wire coat hanger.

I'll have a google around later and see if I find anything about it.

It's just that the only way I can see that a curvy model would take away from the clothes is if people were looking at her body, rather than how the clothes look on her.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

But if the model is a tool for displaying the clothes then a curvy model would more accurately represent what the clothes would look like on the average woman. A stick-thin model is about as useful to me, when trying to envisage what the clothes would look like on, as having them on a wire coat hanger.

I'll have a google around later and see if I find anything about it.

It's just that the only way I can see that a curvy model would take away from the clothes is if people were looking at her body, rather than how the clothes look on her.

I don't think what the clothes look like on the average woman is much of a consideration. I think the point of having a curveless model is to keep the focus on the item not the model, and what they look like on the actual end user is secondary to displaying the item in its ideal environment - with no lumps or bumps to disturb the line.

It's like skincare adverts that use girls in their early 20's to advertise anti-ageing lines targeted at women in their 40's or 50's. Its an aspiration, a lifestlye ideal and an illusion.

Also samples are made in a standard size six. Haute couture pieces displayed on the catwalk are probably single items, they just don't make loads of them because they're made to measure/order thereafter, so they're all made in one size and the models have to fit the clothes, rather than the clothes fit the model.

When it comes to high street sellers, there's no such excuse though, as they're mass produced items.

Larianne

eviltwin wrote: »

I hate it too. I know its rooted in a good cause, trying to make bigger women feel a bit better about themselves in the face of a fashion and beauty industry that tends to make them feel worthless but its backfired big time.

I do think you're comment about size 14 is a bit misguided...why do people constantly get hung up on a number ? I have pairs of size 14 jeans that are hanging off me and others the same size I can't button up. The sizes tend to be quite different depending on where you shop. We need to get away from the idea that a label on our clothes is a measure of our overall health

Well I think, in general, people can relate to that than knowing what a healthy BMI is or what a healthy waist to hip ratio is. I'll know if I've put on weight or lost weight by how tight my jeans are. But I understand the point you're making.

southsiderosie

kylith wrote: »

That reminds me of a remark I heard when I was watching Project Catwalk a few years back; there was a challenge involving plus-sized (i.e. normal sized) models, and one of the contestants was complaining about how hard it was to tailor clothes for her because her breasts ruined the hang of the clothes. I wanted so badly to be able to reach through the TV and slap them, and point out that most women have bigger breasts than that model did, and if they found it hard to make clothes for actual women rather than the skinny malinkas you see on catwalks then they'd better rethink their career choice.

Someone said to me once that they put the blame for skinny, curveless models on gay male designers in the fashion industry. Their reasoning was that because gay men don't find women attractive, so they subconsciously design for what they are attracted to; thin people with narrow hips and no boobs. I don't know enough about the prevalence of gay designers to be able to make a cogent argument one way or the other, but I do think that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of men designing women's clothing, and I do wonder how this impacts on trends, both in clothing and in body types.

I don't think the gay man theory is true: gay men have always been disproportionately represented in the fashion industry, but the shift from a US6 being the sample size to a US2 or 0 being the main sample size is fairly recent. Plus off of the top of my head two of the fashion houses who are the most aggressive about using very very thin runway models are Prada and Gucci (Prada in particular), and both are led by women.

Larianne

username123 wrote: »

I agree. I have to wear a 14 in dresses because Ive big boobs. I actually went up a bra size from swimming but jeans Ive owned for 7 years are still a perfect fit.

That's your boobs rather than your waist/abdomen. It's abdominal fat that increases your risk of health issues. So it's not the same thing.

username123

Larianne wrote: »

That's your boobs rather than your waist/abdomen. It's abdominal fat that increases your risk of health issues. So it's not the same thing.

Im sorry, in your post you simply referred to size and not specifically where. I have always been a different size on the upper body to the lower, sometimes 2 sizes (depending on the clothes - as eviltwin said, different places are different sizes).

Larianne

username123 wrote: »

Im sorry, in your post you simply referred to size and not specifically where. I have always been a different size on the upper body to the lower, sometimes 2 sizes (depending on the clothes - as eviltwin said, different places are different sizes).

I knew what I was saying in my head! :pac: So yeah, general overall size.

I'm interested in chronic disease and prevention and health promotion so my posts relating to size is coming from that angle rather than anything else.

Sorry, I'm going off topic here.

Legs.Eleven

Does anyone have a theory or know why clothes sizes are so inconsistent? And how it is possible to find out what size you really are?

rainbow kirby

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

And how it is possible to find out what size you really are?

Sizing charts are a reasonably good starting point, as is this (uses measurements from several stores and suggests a decent fit).

Twee.

It's hard with online shopping, but my go to phrase when I worked in clothes retail was "The right size is the size that fits". It's less technical, and more emotional. I've had women in fitting rooms saying they wouldn't try on the bigger size, because it's not "their size", but also saying that what they have on is too small. Screw the label, if it fits, it fits. All well and good though until you're in a rush and grab something in your regular size, and it ends up being too big/small.

Thankfully now I sell something that's a little easier on sizing... Sunglasses!