Myla Dalbesio Photo: Lachlan Bailey for Calvin Klein.
Of course thousands of people have commented that Dalbesio is normal size and absolutely gorgeous. She definitely is. And yes, for her height, her size is perfect. She may be 'plus' in comparison to the slighter models, but she is perfectly proportioned, and her body is toned and athletic. So far so good. If being aspirational is part of what being a model is about, Myla Dalbesio is aspirational in the best possible way.
I am just slightly concerned however that the whole debate on size hardly ever takes height and musculature into account. At 5'11 being size 14 (I am now using British sizes so that no one gets confused, I am writing from the UK) is absolutely in proportion, normal, if you are fond of that very overused word. At 5'1 (154.94 cm) size 14 is not quite in proportion, it is definitely an indication of being somewhat overweight, especially if the bone structure is light.
What I am trying to say is that being of this or that size is pretty meaningless. It is the relationship between body type, weight and height that matters. Being very overweight is as unhealthy as being severely underweight. If a 5'3 woman says she is size 18 and loves her curves, good for her, but technically she is overweight, with all the disadvantages that being overweight entails, from a medical viewpoint.
Photographer: Jeremy Howitt. Model: me
I love this ad because it does not distinguish between 'normal' and 'skinny'. All the models appear together and the caption under Dalbesio's picture is 'Perfect Fit'. What could be more complimentary than that?
Some model agencies still put pressure on the girls to lose weight, unnecessarily. A model friend, 5'11, size 8, 60 Kg in weight was told by her former agency she should shed at least five kilos to be a 'regular' model. She quit the agency and found another almost immediately: with her look, still in her early twenties, she can find modelling work quite easily, without losing any weight.
We need to rethink the whole issue of sizes without fixating on the actual number. The whole discourse on body shape and body size should shift to considering the health factor rather than just the aesthetics. The latter is transient and can change, as the Calvin Klein new campaign shows.
And some of the literature I've read from fat acceptance groups suggests that up to a certain level, being "overweight" is not as unhealthy as commonly believed--and that the health risks parallel those faced by minorities who experience prejudice and discrimination. Sometimes I think "sizism" is one of the last acceptable prejudices.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that BMI makes allowance for height in a rough and ready kind of way, and gives a reasonable "normal" range that allows, for any given height, weight of the mid-point plus or minus about 15 per cent. Of course there may be special circumstances for particular people, and even among people without special features there will be some people for whom being outside the normal range will do no harm, some for whom it will have a slight effect, and some for whom it will have a serious effect. Statistical results about the effects of having any given BMI may hold for populations, but they need not hold for individuals.
ReplyDeleteMore generally, one would expect natural selection to have led us to favour whatever appearance in fact indicated good health. If that preference is there, and if a manipulative advertising industry has distorted that preference, the industry has a disturbing amount of power. But then we would have to ask why there should be an attempt to distort that preference. All business wants is to make money, so why couldn't it make money out of promoting normal healthy shapes? (I am sure there are answers, but don't know what they are.)
Meanwhile, I am looking forward to Rubens and His Legacy at the Royal Academy in January.