The Wall Street Journal and Toronto Standard were among the many publications discussing Israel's recent ban on "too skinny" models.
In Israel, models must have a BMI of at least 18.5 in order to work and there are very strict rules about using models who fall below the magic number. However, this ruling is unfair. BMI is, after all, not always an indicator of health -- there have been many publications that have proven that. For example, people with very light bones and athletes are more likely to fall out of said number, and still be relatively healthy. In addition, one can meet these minimum requirements, yet still look extremely thin -- muscle, after all, weighs more than fat.
I understand that there is a need to use "healthier" looking models and a more diverse range of sizes. This is something that I support. I have long been advocating the use of shorter women, especially if designers want to stick with their super-tiny sample sizes as well as larger women. That's why I think using proportion (i.e. a model's measurements) is a much better alternative.
For example, a requirement can be that models over 5'9" must have a waist of 27" or more (and with bust and hips that are in proportion). This is still very thin for a taller woman, but not nearly as thin as many of the models one currently sees on the runway.
If the models are, say, between 5'6" and 5'9", then the waist size can drop down a bit. It can drop further still if the models are truly petite (below 5'5"). This will also force designers to make larger sample sizes. At the same time, the models will still look "slim", but not scary-skinny.
While I would love to see an even more diverse range -- true plus sizes, for example, implementing rules like I outlined is probably a good start and one without as much controversy as a BMI requirement. Because if Canada had the same requirements as Israel, I wouldn't qualify either (not that I can, save for any petite-exclusive line or designer that will cast short women). And I have never been told that my weight was "unhealthy."
NOTE: This was originally posted in DelectablyChic!
Stars on the cover of magazines without airbrushing
Follow Cynthia Cheng Mintz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/delectablychic
Their is a book called "The Anatomy of Anorexia" by Steven Levenkron, a psychotherapist who treats them. His patients were BMI 14 and one he described as starving at BMI 16 but another he described as slim at the same BMI. As the article states there are other factors.
He concluded that the it is not the waist size of models that patients were starving themselves toward. Ordinary women have shorter legs than man in proportion to their bodies. A small number of women have legs as long as men. That's why we refer to models as "leggy". A number of his patients were girls trying to starve themselves to make their legs look like fashion models when their bone structure makes it impossible.
When I told a woman friend of the book she chuckled, "Then it's true, 'I'm not fat, I'm just too short for my weight.' "
Like you, I have some troubles in my mind with this decree, on the other hand, I see it as a possibly practical law. I recall the Chinese law on one child families, which generated a lot of protest. I think at some point in the near future, there will be severe restrictions on reproduction imposed by all governments, if we humans are not extinct.
I can only guess how this fetish for thinness came to be, but it has become destructive, and the so-called media images of the super-thin model as the only desirable female figure has wrought great damage on young women who think they must conform to that mold.
The thing about "proportion" is that it is subjective. What I might call proportionate may differ from what you might say is proportionate. It would be much harder to legislate and would be far more discriminatory without cause.
And really...typical fashion models in the industry are a minimum of 5'8 or 5'9 in height. To meet a BMI of 18.5, the girl would need to be 123 and 125lbs respectively, which is frightfully thin already.
Besides, this restriction is both for women and men. Your suggestions are only about women.
BMI is not an accurate measure, but as a general rule, that can be checked fairly easy, it's fine.
And it's not that big of a loss if you or someone else can't work as a model because of this restriction. There are much more important things to do in life than be a model.
I on the other hand, looked like a walking skeleton at 130 pounds and 5'8" so I don't think it is even possible to make a rule that fits everyone.
Male models have far more unrealistic bodies that require a great deal of maintenance, and they actually have to work for them, not just lay off the doughnuts for a couple of weeks. Female models have it easy by comparison, but acknowledging this would dilute the outrage the author is trying to manufacture.
After all, only women can be victims.
Cloths on bones is not a look to aspire to.
Size 1 is a juniors size and isn't commonly found in designer brands.
Bad title to the article.