The model standard in American life

Two British supermodels, Twiggy (1960) and Kate Moss (1990), strutted down the runway at five-foot-five and five-foot-seven, weighing less than 100 pounds each. The standard of fashionably thin was set. The standard was to be tall and very slender, with legs up to one's chin. \nOne of the most mysterious aspects of the fashion industry is that it harbors some of the most beautiful people in the world: the supermodels. The supermodel or the goddess of beauty is a rarity not just in American society, but around the world. I don't know many who can name five people who could become a model. It is almost impossible, because the supermodel is more like a mythical figure than a day-to-day girlfriend. \nPeople always ask me, "Patrice, do you ever get intimidated by all those models?" I answer no, but there is a reason for this. In the fashion industry, everyone has a role. Your role may be to design, dress, report or just watch. Most people don't spend a lot of time gawking at the models. Even when they are on the runway, you are looking at the clothes, not the models. I only get intimidated by their height -- when you are five-foot-five and try to dress a person who is five-foot-ten, it presents a challenge. Especially when you have to help them put on a shirt or jacket. Models are just models, human clothes hangers who walk down the runway. They have a job -- being thin. \nOf course, you have to appreciate the beauty of the model/supermodel, but I think appreciation is a as far as it should go. I believe this because like so many other industries, the product is manipulated into being something it is not. Considering all the models I have met and dressed, I will say most of them look exactly how they are portrayed in magazines. But are they a true representation of the model and women in general? The Victoria's Secret catalog stirs up a lot of questions, such as is it humanly possible to be that tall, thin and still have a D-cup? Many experts agree the answer is absolutely not. \n"Their proportions are improbable if not as preposterous (as) those of the women in Playboy," said Holly Brubach in her article "The Athletic Esthetic," published in the New York Times Magazine in June of1996. \nBrubach, along with Nancy Etcoff, author of the book "Survival of the Prettiest," go on to say large breasts are nearly impossible at that weight. \n"Because breast tissue is composed mostly of fat, a woman that bosomy would be fuller in the hips and thighs as well." (Height and weight included) \nBrubach goes on about the Victoria's Secret model and the fantasy that is exploited in the catalog. \n" … Is the result not of what they've done but what has been done to -- or for -- them: breast implants and in some cases liposuction. Even so their legs and arms are never scrawny. Unlike fashion models, these women look as if they have an extra layer of upholstery gently cushioning the sharp corners of their joints," Brubach wrote. \nI don't know if all models have had cosmetic surgery, but I will say the first time I ever saw a pair of breast implants was behind the scenes of a runway show. \nI think American women and all women should take into perspective the model's country of origin. Most runway models aren't from America. Many of them are from Africa or Europe, such as Naomi Campbell, Alec Wec, Iman, Naomi Lenoir, Isabeli Fontana, Karolina Kurkova, Elle Macpherson, Carmen Kass, Heidi Klumm, etc. Out of a list of 50 models, only about nine of them were Americans, supermodels included. Of course, women from countries where they don't eat as much and the food portions are smaller are naturally going to be thinner. Sounds like the standard isn't necessarily American. \nWhile it is nice to appreciate the rare beauty of the Victoria's Secret and runway models, it should all be put into perspective when judging one's self.