Business

You Must Be Sixteen To Have That Heroin Chic Appearance

pO157.

Posted to Business on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:55:21 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

Fashion experts have suggested that all models 16 and under be banned from the star-studded London Fashion Week due to concerns over eating disorders.

Modeling has always been a business linked with anorexia and other eating disorders. So many problems had been found with young women and modeling that the Model Health Inquiry began to study ways to make the industry safer for its workers.

In a recently released report (pdf) the MHI stated that models under 16 were too vulnerable to work in the industry. It cited worries about their sexual exploitation, potentially deadly eating disorders, and called for the potential formation of a modeling union to protect the workers.

Although other countries demand model weigh-ins to prevent eating disorders causing unhealthy low model weights, the independent board stated that they are really not that effective and should not be used. Instead, a mandatory annual physical will be given to all models, along with an assessment by a physician when starting with a new employer.

< Pizza bombs and perfect crimes

Road Trip! Lucy To Tour America Despite Age >

Tags: written by pO157, edited by 1fastdog, models, heroin chic, eating disorders, health, London Fashion Week, heroin (all tags)
Add this story to: newsvine reddit digg delicious

This story: 18 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Modeling

skeptic.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:24:21 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Who would have thought that modeling would turn out to be a hazardous profession?  It's still safer than coal mining, I bet.

It seems wrong to me that all models should be required to be at least 16 years old, since some clothing is, after all, intended to be worn by people under 16 who might want to see how it looks on someone their own age.  Children wear clothing too.  It's not much different from the concept of the child actor; some parts are written for children and should be played by children.  And the process of putting on clothing and being photographed does not seem to be inherently that risky, although the risk of anorexia is real, in the existing social climate which places such an excessive emphasis on the importance of being thin.

To the extent that this is a real problem, I do like the idea that models should have (at least) annual medical examinations to ensure that their health is not suffering.  And if so, that would also suggest that models should be licensed.  Without licensing there is no way to keep track of who is working in that profession and who therefore requires the annual medical check-up.  

2

^ 1

Re: Modeling

thefadd.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:06:08 AM EST

1.00

London Fashion Week doesn't feature children's clothes except on a rare basis. that's not the issue here. 14 and 15 year olds are preferable for modeling "women's" clothing because not only are they fragile enough to allow the egomaniacs of the design profession to treat them like shit but they've not yet finished puberty so their underdeveloped bodies are the perfect waifish look to dangle in front of real women. As you can see, I have little respect for the fashion industry:)

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

3

^ 2

Re: Modeling

skeptic.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:45:06 AM EST

none

There is a division between children's fashion and adult fashion, but it is not an absolute division.  Young teenagers, who let us say are 15 years old, can look forward to their coming adulthood and wear more adult type clothing, or can look backward to their childhood and continue to wear what they have been wearing as children.  At any age, there is some flexibility as to what kind of clothing to choose.  

But in general, I share your dislike for the fashion industry, which seems very artificial.  The beauty of any human being comes from who they are more than from what they are wearing, by which I include both clothing and make-up, another huge artificiality which wastes so much wealth and time.  I think perhaps that as the problems of the 21st century grow every more severe (and I'm afraid that they will) we will all be finding that we need to concentrate on the essentials of life more, and waste less resources on frivolities such as fashion.  

4

^ 3

Re: Modeling

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:57:08 PM EST

4.00 (funny, funny)

The beauty of any human being comes from who they are more than from what they are wearing...
I think beauty comes from platitudes.

5

^ 4

Re: Modeling

Lou.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:28:05 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

I think beauty comes from platitudes.

Is that those hot new exercise routines women are doing now?  For once I have to agree with you.  I've seem some amazing results on girls who do platitudes.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

6

^ 5

Re: Modeling

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:01:20 PM EST

4.75 (funny, brilliant, funny)

Is that those hot new exercise routines women are doing now?
I don't know what the girls are up to these days.

I did see this one episode of The Andy Griffith Show on TV Land earlier tonight. It was about a farmer's daughter who wanted to be a pretty little lady, but couldn't because her pa forbid her from buying makeup and frilly underthings. Pa, see, was a farmer (maybe I mentioned that already) and he didn't have a wife (dead, I guess - I missed the beginning of the episode) or sons, and there was a lot of farm work to be done. So the daughter had to put on some old crappy overalls that didn't show her womanly figure. And she had to slop pigs and whatnot.

Andy's girlfriend took pity on the poor, under-dressed farmer's daughter, and asked Andy to help out. So Andy had his deputy (Barney Fife) kidnap the farmer's daughter and bring her to his girlfriend for reprogramming.

They (Andy and his girlfriend) took the farmer's daughter back to the farm - and guess what? The farmer didn't even recognize his own daughter, what with the clean hair and new dress and cosmetics! Ha! He said "you look right pretty" but there's work to be done, so get your work clothes on.

Andy saved the day, of course, being the ever-so-suave-yet-homespun-diplomat-with-a-drawl sheriff that he was. He told the farmer that if he set his new and improved (clean and in a dress) daughter up on the fence, then the neighbor's boys would want to fuck her, and then they'd be happy to help out with the farm chores. He didn't say "fuck," of course, but that's what he meant.

I shit you not: this was an actual TV show.

 

8

^ 6

Re: Modeling

Lou.

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:08:04 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

Did Andy  or the father make her do platitudes though?  Kind of hard to say, what with all of those hoot in a holler family values and such.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

9

^ 8

Re: Whoring

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:44:24 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

Did Andy  or the father make her do platitudes though?
There was some mention of "female war paint," i.e., makeup. Not by the daughter, who wasn't allowed to do platitudes. (She wasn't allowed to do much of anything except slop the hogs.)

Andy all but said the daughter was chattel, explaining to the farmer that using Frankie (the daughter, Francis) to do farm chores was not an efficient use of her as a business asset. An efficient use of a daughter, Andy explained, would be to let her be her pretty little self and attract men, hopefully with the result that the farmer would gain a son-in-law. And a son-in-law would, of course, be able to do a lot more work on the farm than Frankie ever could hope to do.

In case you think I am making this up, here's a synopsis of the episode, Ellie Saves a Female.

11

^ 9

Re: Whoring

Lou.

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:30:52 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

I also find it telling that the girl's nickname is "Frankie".  Did the farmer secretly want a male child?  Or, by giving his daughter a masculine nickname, did he hope to somehow divert his own depraved thoughts away the femininity of his child. (we are talking about North Carolina, correct?).

Finally, if we look deeper, we see a subtle discussion about basic economics taking place.  Certainly the young woman can work on the farm...perhaps almost as well as her brothers.  Yet, if she can be married off, not only does the farmer get another worker (proletariat?), he frees his daughter to have, you guessed it, children...thus insuring a stable workforce, and not coincidentally, putting his daughter further beyond his indecent reach (although, we could see future problems should his daughter have female babies)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

13

^ 11

Re: Whoring

zyxwvutsr.

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 09:27:53 AM EST

none

Did the farmer secretly want a male child?  Or, by giving his daughter a masculine nickname, did he hope to somehow divert his own depraved thoughts away the femininity of his child. (we are talking about North Carolina, correct?)
From watching the episode, I took the name "Frankie" to be an indication that the farmer had wished for a son. There was absolutely no indication of a sexual subtext, of course: this was a family show. But I guess you can read it any way that helps support your bigoted beliefs about rural folk.
Certainly the young woman can work on the farm...perhaps almost as well as her brothers
See, that's the thing. There is no way that Frankie could ever have performed as a male farmer could. There surely were certain tasks for which she would merely be less efficient, but there were undoubtedly certain tasks that she couldn't perform at all.

14

^ 13

Didn't you get the memo?

Lou.

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:18:02 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

But I guess you can read it any way that helps support your bigoted beliefs about rural folk.

We can still make fun of rednecks/rural folk.  They are not a protected class...yet.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

15

^ 14

Re: Didn't you get the memo?

zyxwvutsr.

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:04:53 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

We can still make fun of rednecks/rural folk.  They are not a protected class...yet
You can make fun of anyone you would like. But bigotry exists independent of the law.

16

^ 15

Re: Didn't you get the memo?

thefadd.

Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM EST

1.00

I just love that as each of these new replies trickles in, the post which nests just below for me is skeptic saying "jesus loves you" even though that post is technically in reply to something else. It's an added "bonus" dimension to the conversation that keeps on giving.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

17

^ 16

Re: Didn't you get the memo?

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:15:51 PM EST

none

It's an added "bonus" dimension to the conversation that keeps on giving
You could make it your new sig.

7

^ 6

Re: Modeling

thefadd.

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:32:27 PM EST

1.00 (obnoxious)

gotta love those family values. shame they won't ever be able to bring back those good old days...

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

12

^ 7

Some Tried

uncarved block.

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:47:26 AM EST

none

    Remember when The Rules was in the news about a decade ago? I'm assuming Frankie isn't' supposed to put out until she's actually married, this being pre-60s. I'm guessing Fein and Schneider would watch this show and wonder why we were making such a big deal about it . . .

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

10

^ 4

Re: Modeling

skeptic.

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:40:34 AM EST

none

Jesus loves you.

18

Re: policy-making the associative way

socky.

Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:17:27 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

This is one of the most toe-curling aspects of modern British politics. Young models are skinny and look vulnerable...some young women have eating disorders (some of them eat dysfunctionally and are fat but they are generally neither so posh nor so pretty as the anorexic girls - crucially there are proportionately more miserable skinnies among the daughters of MPS, journalists, media types)...(huge leap) models must be protected - more so than any other working minors. Eh? Also, somehow images of them are harmful to the golden children of the above sub-sectors, sooo - these images should become impossible to make, for the duration and within the context of London Fashion Week. That'll fix it. As Frances McDormand would say in the remake, Got to fault you there on your detective work, Minister.  Every time I walk around London I see real-life happy, skinny teenage girls - and your daughters will see them too. They don't need to be "glamorised" - they're glamorous.

Generally, models are skinny by luck, not the type of tragic demented effort expended by anorexics et al - and they are no more miserable than the general population. How many of this type of model are there in the UK anyway? Genuine, gazelle-legged, swan-necked editorial/catwalk models? versus how many miserable teens self-harming with food, or drugs, or anything else?  As for the special protection for under-16 models, sexual harassment, assault and rape are all illegal here, and super super-illegal if the victim is under 16. All businesses where the "talent" is much younger than the executives, and where that talent is selected by criteria other than shrewd cunning, have a leaning towards exploitation - see child actors, sports stars, pop stars. To counter this there are agents; there are soaringly high rewards for some; and in the case of children, there are parents and guardians and some particular employment laws. None of these protect the consumer of the product, nor could they.

If I could detect a similar rush to protect the under-age (and only-just-over) victims of sex-trafficking into the UK, maybe I would find the effort and expense, and media attention, ostensibly applied to some lucky kids who might well come out unscathed, and will come out with experiences, connections and money not available to child prostitutes, I would spend less time growling at my radio in the mornings. It's more than just a waste of money and time; it panders to, rather than challenges, lazy thinking that could be applied to something far more important next time round.

This story: 18 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment

search »
Login »
Make a new account
Related Links »
suggested
London Fashion Week
has
always
eating disorders
Model Health Inquiry
report
deadly eating disorders
More on Business
Also by pO157
QuickLinks »
Hindsight's a Bitch
Dow Jones is down 40% this year. Remember the movement to privatize Social Security?
- DEMachina
<—————+———Ο—>
Why are the automakers in this mess?
Humourous comment here. Let's bail them out!
- pO157
<—————+Ο————>
Have you heard?
Obama may have a Polish connection.
- Steve Urkel
<—————+——Ο——>
Al-Qaida wrong again
Al-Qaida number two (insert your own joke here) calls Obama a House Negro. That is so wrong...everyone knows he was a 'Senate Negro'
- Lou
<—————+———Ο—>
Stevens out
Ted Stevens has lost the Alaska Senate race.
- songofthepogo
<—————+———Ο—>
I forgot to tell you: My old boss committed treason
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has revealed that George W. Bush told him personally that he had authorized Scooter Libby to leak Valerie Plame's identity to the press. Thanks for the update, Scott.
- logan
<—————+———Ο—>
Iraq/US Deal Signed
Iraq and the U.S. have signed a pact by which, among other things, the U.S. agrees to withdrawall troops by the end of 2011.
- DEMachina
<—————+—Ο———>
SC Governor Calls for Federal Bailout...
Of nobody.
- pO157
<—————+—Ο———>
Submit a QuickLink:
If you'd like to submit your own QuickLink, you'll need to log in (or register) first.

Users own their contributions, all else is © 2006, 2007 Trees and Things, Incorporated.

Powered by Scoop.

Terms of Service

Privacy