fuller figure shop mannequins

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!

gagiteebo

Larianne wrote: »

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!

I completely agree with every woman being a real woman comment but I have to disagree with your size 14 comment. I'm a size 14 and 5 11 and a healthy weight. I wouldn't say it's rare at all. A little bit misguided to say that.

pwurple

gagiteebo wrote: »

I completely agree with every woman being a real woman comment but I have to disagree with your size 14 comment. I'm a size 14 and 5 11 and a healthy weight. I wouldn't say it's rare at all. A little bit misguided to say that.

Yup, I was annoyed by that too. I'm normal BMI, average height. Usually a 10/12 in pants and dresses. I'm an E cup on top, so I have size 14 tops from some places. I have gone to size 16 shirts/blouses and had them tailored in at the waist, so they don't gape at the boobs. Nothing unhealthy about my stats, blood pressure low, heart rate low, chloresterol low. Feck off with your unhealthy size 14.

The plastic models look expensive! I guess for a lingerie shop they need to be a bit more lifelike.

username123

pwurple wrote: »

Yup, I was annoyed by that too........................Feck off with your unhealthy size 14.

Have to agree. As stated earlier am also a 14 on top 10/12 below. Sometimes a 16 on top. I was very ill once and lost a lot of weight, went to a size 8 all over. That was not healthy for me, at all. I was cold all the time, I was picking up bugs all the time, I was pale, miserable, you could see in photos of me that my bone corners were jutting and it didnt look good at all, I looked like I was sick.

ted1

username123 wrote: »

Have to agree. As stated earlier am also a 14 on top 10/12 below. Sometimes a 16 on top. I was very ill once and lost a lot of weight, went to a size 8 all over. That was not healthy for me, at all. I was cold all the time, I was picking up bugs all the time, I was pale, miserable, you could see in photos of me that my bone corners were jutting and it didnt look good at all, I looked like I was sick.

There's a difference between being a size 8 as a result of being ill and being a size 8 as a result of living a healthy lifestyle of exercise and diet.

username123

ted1 wrote: »

There's a difference between being a size 8 as a result of being ill and being a size 8 as a result of living a healthy lifestyle of exercise and diet.

The point is, a size 8 looks ill on me, it is too skinny on me, my bones jut out. It may be fine on other people, but you cannot say "this size is healthy, this size is not", it depends on the person.

Larianne

pwurple wrote: »

Yup, I was annoyed by that too. I'm normal BMI, average height. Usually a 10/12 in pants and dresses. I'm an E cup on top, so I have size 14 tops from some places. I have gone to size 16 shirts/blouses and had them tailored in at the waist, so they don't gape at the boobs. Nothing unhealthy about my stats, blood pressure low, heart rate low, chloresterol low. Feck off with your unhealthy size 14.

The plastic models look expensive! I guess for a lingerie shop they need to be a bit more lifelike.

As I clarified in a post above, I was referring to abdominal fat and rather, people who are size 12/14+ who do not have a healthy BMI but think it's okay. I used dress size rather than BMI or waist to hip ratio as most people don't know what that is.

You will always get people saying "I'm healthy, it's grand" -which it is, if you are a healthy weight, have a normal BMI etc. But the majority of people won't be. And this is the problem. Having the extra weight is becoming (or has become) the norm, and from a health point of view, it is not good for your health.

CathyMoran

My hip to waist ratio is 0.7 and my bmi is between 21.5 and 23 but I still need a bigger dress size to cater for the size of my chest as a rule - this is not an issue but is an annoyance as shops rarely cater for hour glass as pear and apple shapes appear to be the norm which is fair enough.

meeeeh

Hour glass is when breast and hips are about the same and waist is smaller. I used to be hourglass although my breasts were C or B cup. Hourglass doesn't necessary mean bigger boobs but bust in proportion to hips and smaller waist. I had no problems finding clothes, except trousers sometimes.

jimbobaloobob

How so Joe wrote: »

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.

apparently its called blowing the socks off ya

rainbow kirby

meeeeh wrote: »

Hour glass is when breast and hips are about the same and waist is smaller. I used to be hourglass although my breasts were C or B cup. Hourglass doesn't necessary mean bigger boobs but bust in proportion to hips and smaller waist. I had no problems finding clothes, except trousers sometimes.

I tend to describe myself as a "top-heavy hourglass" - my bust is 4 inches bigger than my hips at the widest point of each, but my waist is very defined (15 inches smaller than my bust and 11 inches smaller than my hips). No other way of describing that sort of figure really.