Body Shaming

The stores with mannequinns aren't in the mannequinn making business. It's not like these places get them for free, they have to pay for them. Are females going to donate money to these stores in order to pay for the wide variety of mannequinns that would be needed? Also what about the females that *do* have body types similar to the current mannequinns?

Since if I owned a store I'd say f*ck it, no more mannequinns at all. You want to know how you'd look in an outfit? Try it on and look in the mirror.

Since before you said this wasn't unreasonable, but you don't seem to want to get into the specifics of how they'd accomplish this without somehow offending women. The only way to avoid that would be to literally create a mannequinn for every single body shape.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm asking you how you determine what the right choice is. How do they decide which body type should represent women? How do you do so without offending the women who don't fit into the size chosen?

The average size in the US for a woman is 12-14. The typical mannequin isn't close to that.

edit: Granted, they should be making the petite/sport mannequins are they are now as well, as you're not going to fit size 2-4 sport-tights on a size 12-14 mannequin.

Originally posted by Robtard
The average size in the US for a woman is 12-14. The typical mannequin isn't close to that.

But not all women fit into that category, so how do you choose what the mannequinn should look like? What about the women who have bodies smaller then average? Or larger then average?

Originally posted by Surtur
The stores with mannequinns aren't in the mannequinn making business. It's not like these places get them for free, they have to pay for them. Are females going to donate money to these stores in order to pay for the wide variety of mannequinns that would be needed? Also what about the females that *do* have body types similar to the current mannequinns?

Since if I owned a store I'd say f*ck it, no more mannequinns at all. You want to know how you'd look in an outfit? Try it on and look in the mirror.

Since before you said this wasn't unreasonable, but you don't seem to want to get into the specifics of how they'd accomplish this without somehow offending women. The only way to avoid that would be to literally create a mannequinn for every single body shape.

Women spend money in the business, if they are uncomfortable with the mannequins chosen they may take their business elsewhere. It is then on the shop owners to see how to attract more business. They may ask their mannequin sellers for different mannequins, that appeal to their customers. This is really capitalism 101.

Hey, if you were a store owner you could try that. It might even work.

But again: unless you make a mannequinn for every body type there will ALWAYS be women uncomfortable with it. Are you saying that assessment is not true?

I think you are hung up on the offending women part. So what if you offend some women, you have to do what is best for your business in the climate that exists. So find the mannequin set up that's least offensive to most of your customers and run with it.

But you are the one saying they should change it because their customers are uncomfortable with it. They would still have customers uncomfortable with it unless they did a mannequinn for every single body type. Do you disagree with me on that?

Originally posted by Surtur
But not all women fit into that category, so how do you choose what the mannequinn should look like? What about the women who have bodies smaller then average? Or larger then average?

As I noted in my edit, they should be making a broader line of mannequins, imo. I've seen a larger/voluptuous mannequin here and there, but it's rare.

But generally when it's a 'one to represent all' scenario, you go with the average of the total, that way you address the largest amount.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you are the one saying they should change it because their customers are uncomfortable with it. They would still have customers uncomfortable with it unless they did a mannequinn for every single body type. Do you disagree with me on that?

I don't disagree that it is possible that some customers will be uncomfortable with whatever they choose. But again, these things are not binary. It is better for the business to offend just one person than a thousand people. They have to figure out which is the optimal strategy for them.

Originally posted by Robtard
As I noted in my edit, they should be making a broader line of mannequins, imo. I've seen a larger/voluptuous mannequin here and there, but it's rare.

But generally when it's a 'one to represent all' scenario, you go with the average of the total, that way you address the largest amount.

I get this, all I'm saying is you're going to piss off women no matter what unless you make a shitload of mannequinns.

There would be women who would say it's not fair that some store is taking it upon themselves to decide what a "real" woman should look like. I think we both know this would happen even if a store came out and said "we just based it on the size of your average woman".

I'm also wondering if there is even a sizable amount of women out there who would choose not to buy clothes at a certain store because they didn't like the size of the mannequinns.

They don't have to make a mnqn for every size. A size 8-10 mnqn would be representative of size 6-12 women, that's a far broader coverage than the size 2 mnqn now.

We do know what the "average" woman looks like though, it's size 12-14 according to statistics. Would that be "reality"?

The average woman, actually average people deal with that every day when shopping now.

edit: And as I said before, stores that specialize in certain clothing (eg tight sports gear), sure, have the size 2 mnnqn with the ripped abs; that's your target market.

There is no one specific shape, even women with the same height and weight don't have identical body shapes, you know that right? Some are bigger in one area of the body while not in another.

So we take the average size, but do you know the average shape? Is there even an average shape?

So if people are going to whine over mannequinns then I just say instead of looking to a mannequinn just try the clothes on yourself. Most clothing stores will let you try them on. Doesn't that make infinitely more sense then a woman trying to imagine the clothes on a mannequinn that may or may not adhere to her body type?

Since when was it not possible for "fat" and "beautiful" to be mutual concepts?

It kind of weirds me out that so many of the people in this thread that are advocating a relaxing of social judgements on body type are also making statements like "she isn't fat, she's beautiful". There are no beautiful fat people?

I agree with that post very much.

To French in these kinds of discussions "fat", "unattractive " and "uunhealthy are used interchangeably. And it just doesn't make much sense.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Nearly 200 pounds for a 5'9 female is definitely overweight. Just because she doesn't have a double chin(yet), doesn't mean she isn't overweight.

According to her modeling agency, she is 5'9" and 175 lbs. That makes her smart BMI 25.8, which is overweight.

However, she carries that weight in her breasts and hips, which are female fertility markers, and this increases her waist to hip ratio, which is another female fertility cue.

That is why she is both overweight and still attractive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with that post very much.

To French in these kinds of discussions "fat", "unattractive " and "uunhealthy are used interchangeably. And it just doesn't make much sense.

"To French" was an auto correct that I overlooked, I am not sure what the exact phrasing was, but obviously it was meant to convey that these words are used interchangeably too often.

I ask to overlook other typos as well.

When some girl gets called fat, its a big deal, but when homosexuality is called a mental illness, thats ok?

**** off.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Since when was it not possible for "fat" and "beautiful" to be mutual concepts?

It kind of weirds me out that so many of the people in this thread that are advocating a relaxing of social judgements on body type are also making statements like "she isn't fat, she's beautiful". There are no beautiful fat people?

More on topic.

I believe if someone is trying to insult you or something, its fair game to call them fat back or whatever, but as a whole, body shaming can cause that person to commit suicide, or starve themselves.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
When some girl gets called fat, its a big deal, but when homosexuality is called a mental illness, thats ok?

**** off.

Who are you referring to that holds these two opinions?