'Shockingly thin Topshop mannequin sparks outrage over unrealistic body image'

Tasden

Deenie123 wrote: »

This is part of the problem. If it was Wallis or somewhere... I'd say no biggie. But 12 year olds love to traipse around in Topshop. A 12 year old who's adjusting to new curves and a new body shape is in no position to be saying "Oh well that's clearly not a realistic body shape". They're just thinking "I'm not that thin..."

I love how they claim the mannequin is based on a size 10... As in.. Taller and thinner and looking nothing like a size 10...

That mannequin looks more curvy than I did at 12. Same with most of my friends tbh.

And most teenagers I would have any interactions with nowadays would actually be more interested in a figure like niki minaj, beyonce, katy perry, iggy whatsername, all pretty curvy healthy looking women. Not to mention the endless atrocious songs about men preferring bigger girls and not "skinny bitches".

Fashion has long been associated with ridiculous skinny women. And there will always be people complaining about it. Its not going to change any time soon though.

happywithlife

nokia69 wrote: »

if so many teens are striving for the skinny form why is obesity on the rise

we have a problem with too many fat kids not skinny ones

Actually we are turning into a nation of super fit vs super fat. The 'average medium' is getting lost in the battle IMO

--LOS--

So she's trying to say that the mannequin is not based on an 8/10 because she is a size 8/10, but she's quite short! The mannequin is over 6 foot so of course different sizes will look different on different frames. I also wear a size 8 and what that looks like on me is probably closer to the mannequin or something in between because I'm taller than the girl on the left. So would she be happier with shorter mannequins.

steddyeddy

Riddle101 wrote: »

Woman has too much time on her hands if she's complaining about the size of a mannequin.

Well I agree with her tbh. The standards to which some young women are expected to aspire to are extremely unhealthy.

Simonigs1.0

What if it was a ****ing land whale of a mannequin? Would people complain then? Doubt it.

Cookie_Monster

Simonigs1.0 wrote: »

What if it was a ****ing land whale of a mannequin? Would people complain then? Doubt it.

I would and I hope others would too. Nothing healthy, desirable or nice about being a fatty.

looking_around

Simonigs1.0 wrote: »

What if it was a ****ing land whale of a mannequin? Would people complain then? Doubt it.

You're like the 4th poster to go "but if it was fat?????"

Why can't they just be average?

And the real issue to me, is that topshop are claiming it's a "size 10 UK", my ass. Waaaay too small for a uk 10
At least if they said 10 China, it be plausible.

It's blatant lying to excuse their choice.

One eyed Jack

Simonigs1.0 wrote: »

What if it was a ****ing land whale of a mannequin? Would people complain then? Doubt it.

The "Size 16" Debenhams mannequins immediately spring to mind. The story that was going around about them last year, claiming to reflect the 'average woman' too as it happens -

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/06/debenhams-first-department-store-size-16-models


They can't all be representative of 'the average woman'...

Is it really "unrealistic" though? That's like saying that nobody can be like that.

Anyway any time I go into a men's clothes shop, the mannequins are always extremely well-built. I never get annoyed about it - the shops want to show you how their clothes look ideally on people.

looking_around

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The "Size 16" Debenhams mannequins immediately spring to mind. The story that was going around about them last year, claiming to reflect the 'average woman' too as it happens -

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/06/debenhams-first-department-store-size-16-models


They can't all be representative of 'the average woman'...

Size 16 is hardly the average either.

Isn't 12-14 the average?

To be honest, I'd be happy if they were anywhere between 10 and 14. More than 14, is also encourage an unhealthy size, since that's overweight for most women.
Also would like to see mannequins that aren't super tall.

Corruptedmorals

Mannequins are shockingly expensive, several thousand. It would be an expensive pain in the arse to have a crowd pleasing variety of sizes, especially if they had to start over.

Mannequins display outfit ideas, or to draw the eye to stock they are looking to offload quickly. I'd never look to them as any other kind of inspiration, even to guide what the clothes look like on...they are always pinned on them anyway.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

Size 16 is hardly the average either.

Isn't 12-14 the average?

To be honest, I'd be happy if they were anywhere between 10 and 14. More than 14, is also encourage an unhealthy size, since that's overweight for most women.
Also would like to see mannequins that aren't super tall.

But I'd want my mannequins to be somewhere between size 6-10 and average height. Can't win.

I think the most annoying thing about mannequins is actually how they clip the clothing at the back to make it fit better and then when you try it on it wont sit the same way obviously because its not clipped in at the right areas.

Corruptedmorals: great minds :pac:

looking_around

Tasden wrote: »

But I'd want my mannequins to be somewhere between size 6-10 and average height. Can't win.

I think the most annoying thing about mannequins is actually how they clip the clothing at the back to make it fit better and then when you try it on it wont sit the same way obviously because its not clipped in at the right areas.

6 and 8 aren't average sizes, how hard is it to stick with "average", if you're in the minority tough luck.

I say this as someone who wears 6/8.
__
Also they make it clip because their mannequins are smaller than their smallest size........ that is a problem no?

I understand the mannequin has to be a little smaller than the clothes size, but smaller than the smallest size?

And why so bleedin tall? the average woman is far from 5'8'

bodice ripper

If she feels strongly about it, perhaps she should consider not giving them her money...

One eyed Jack

looking_around wrote: »

Size 16 is hardly the average either.

Isn't 12-14 the average?

To be honest, I'd be happy if they were anywhere between 10 and 14. More than 14, is also encourage an unhealthy size, since that's overweight for most women.
Also would like to see mannequins that aren't super tall.

I'll be honest, I don't have a clue about women's sizes (well, I can make a guesstimate, but that's all it would be), so I couldn't tell you what is or isn't average. The only thing I do know however is that no matter what a woman's size or height or whatever, she can always find something to flatter her figure, and I don't think too many women base their opinions on clothing on how the mannequin looks wearing them.

I don't know where this idea that mannequins were ever meant to represent women has come from as most designers mannequins simply consist of a torso!

Macavity.

I wish I looked like a mannequin.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

6 and 8 aren't average sizes, how hard is it to stick with "average", if you're in the minority tough luck.

I say this as someone who wears 6/8.
__
Also they make it clip because their mannequins are smaller than their smallest size........ that is a problem no?

I understand the mannequin has to be a little smaller than the clothes size, but smaller than the smallest size?

And why so bleedin tall? the average woman is far from 5'8'

But that was my point, even if they use average sizes, the people who are a different size will still complain.

Nah no matter what size the mannequin or the clothes they still clip to make it sit right, in most cases its clipped in a way it'd never naturally sit on a human regardless of size.

I'm a 4 -6 and I'm a shortarse. When will there be a mannequin representing me that isn't a 'child'? Never, I'm in the minority.

You have to pick a happy medium, and that medium should be medium, not an extreme at either end.

dellas1979

Clothes shops/designers/cosmetics sell an ideal.

"You buy this, youll look like this". "You put this on your face, youll look like that".

Perception of how you see yourself is a bit wacky in human beings. And how you project your "idea" of yourself on others (and things, including this mannequin issue).

I go to an exercise class. The other day talking to one of the girls there, she said something about an item of clothes of hers. I said "oh no-I wont try it on-shur it wouldnt fit me". Genuinely, she is about 4 inches shorter than me and at least 1 size smaller/smaller frame.

And she was like "No way, you are smaller than me".

I remember watching a Gok Wan show once, and it had people pick out of a line up of women, what size they "thought" they were. And nearly every time, the woman would pick someone who was at least 2 sizes bigger.

Tasden

I'm convinced those people in the gok wan line up thing were just being polite and didn't want to insult the women doing the line up so tried to be as modest as possible if that makes sense

Son Of A Vidic

Karl Stein wrote: »

Well I'm a festively plump man

That's one of the best descriptions for carrying a bit of extra padding I think I've ever read.:)

strobe

I reckon if you had size 14 mannequins (that's an awful word to spell), people under that size would find the way the clothes looked on them off putting, but people over a size 8 do not find the way clothes look on size 8 mannequins off putting. So the shops will go for the mannequins which will make the clothes appeal to the most people. Does this make size 10 girls starve themselves and over exercise and hate their bodies? It's probably not a major factor, I would reckon, no, probably not in the top 50 tbh.

Cookie_Monster

looking_around wrote: »

6 and 8 aren't average sizes, how hard is it to stick with "average", if you're in the minority tough luck.

only because of the increasing number of overweight and obese people pushing average up. You can't really bring averages down much further in a healthy but it's very easy to bring them up with such an overweight population.

kerry4sam

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Was reading this article today and was just curious of peoples thoughts on it,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shockingly-thin-topshop-mannequin-sparks-4533843?ICID=FB_mirror_main

Basically the mannequin is smaller then a size 8.

''Becky told us: "We are trying to say let's embrace everybody's shape, we don't want to get rid of the mannequins, we want a more diverse portrayal of the female body.

"Every single mannequin upstairs and downstairs was the same size as this one."

Topshops response was “The mannequin in question has been used in stores the past four years and is based on a standard UK size 10.

"The overall height, at 187cm, is taller than the average girl and the form is a stylised one to have more impact in store and create a visual focus.

"Mannequins are made from solid fibreglass, so in order for clothing to fit, the form of the mannequins needs to be of certain dimensions to allow clothing to be put on and removed; this is therefore not meant to be a representation of the average female body.”

Now to me it seems fairly silly to be moaning about such a thing.

1)Do people really not buy clothes based on a mannequin?
2)Would size 20+ women be giving out if the mannequin was a size 14?

Fair enough wanting more 'diverse' mannequins, but to me it comes across that it's a big thing because it was skinny. No issue would of been made of 'diverse' mannequins had they all been size 12.

*Queue comments based on paper that reported it*

Okay so we have a UK company portraying this anorexic-sized mannequin for their own sales purposes and for the past 4-years; and then...

Humanetics over in the USA are increasing their 'mannequins' / test-dummies to reflect the weight being put on by Americans and says here that

The problem is, our image has changed, and the svelte dummy of yesteryear is a hopeful mirage at best.

Is it only a matter of time before all stores reflect an increasing bigger-sized mannequin? & the likes of Topshop in the UK who are primarily geared toward the younger market will reflect what could very well be the average size for young people in the UK at present, but could too in time change also.

Just a thought,
kerry4sam

/fwiw : the image that went viral was a cheap shot at Topshop UK and just to be honest, I've never once bought any item from their store in person or online & that's my personal choice having nothing to do with sized-mannequins. If you don't like their items, then shop elsewhere imo.

Chunners

Deenie123 wrote: »

This is part of the problem. If it was Wallis or somewhere... I'd say no biggie. But 12 year olds love to traipse around in Topshop. A 12 year old who's adjusting to new curves and a new body shape is in no position to be saying "Oh well that's clearly not a realistic body shape". They're just thinking "I'm not that thin..."

I love how they claim the mannequin is based on a size 10... As in.. Taller and thinner and looking nothing like a size 10...

Sorry but that is just silly logic, mannequins have been used for years to display clothes and you never see a size 20 mannequin because the truth is 20 years ago the country didn't have an obesity problem. Mannequins are there to display the clothes in their best light, they aren't there to say "Well even though you are overweight this dress will just about fit you because it fits our fat dummy here". I can honestly say that I have never seen a 12 year old girl compare herself to a mannequin, she probably compares herself to her friends but no 12 year old girl says to herself "I wish I was as skinny as that mannequin"

ceadaoin.

looking_around wrote: »

6 and 8 aren't average sizes, how hard is it to stick with "average", if you're in the minority tough luck.

I say this as someone who wears 6/8.
__
Also they make it clip because their mannequins are smaller than their smallest size........ that is a problem no?

I understand the mannequin has to be a little smaller than the clothes size, but smaller than the smallest size?

And why so bleedin tall? the average woman is far from 5'8'

What's the average size and height of a fashion model? They are considerably taller and skinnier than the general population because, for modeling purposes, clothes look better on that sort of frame. A mannequin is just an extension of that. It's for displaying clothes, it's not meant to be a representation of an average person.

Gatling

What's next asking that the nipples to be removed ,
To prevent the sexualising of mannequins

Remmy

Gonna sound like a pillock here but why do mannequins and models have the feet turned in like that? Does it show off the clothes more or something I'm missing?

Tarzana2

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

*Queue comments based on paper that reported it*

Cue?

Riddle101

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I agree with her tbh. The standards to which some young women are expected to aspire to are extremely unhealthy.

I understand that, but there are plenty of worse things out there for young women, to be complaining about than the size of a mannequin. It's just a model for shops to advertise their clothes on. They're not representatives of life. Hell I would understand it a lot more, if the woman was complaining about something much worse like the modeling industry and the pressure it puts on women to be thin, than this. I mean i've seen some seriously skinny models in my time, and all I could think about how are they still alive. They look like they haven't eaten in years. The sad part is, that's the way the modelling industry works and if women don't adhere to those standards then then get passed over simple as that. Seems like a bad industry to get into tbh.

But as far as a mannequin in a shop goes. I wouldn't look too much into, it's not meant to be taken seriously.