My thoughts when I first saw this picture, as they jumped onto the hamster wheel in my head:
1. Wow, that mannequin is super skinny!
2. But aren’t all mannequins super skinny? At least this one’s anatomically correct. It (she?) even has a bellybutton and nips – clearly they sprang for the high-end model! (Model! Hahahah! Does that count as a pun? Did I just make myself laugh out loud? Yep.)
3. They should buy the best, they’re La Perla. Their stuff is so expensive that even carrying the shopping bag has caché, kind of like toting a Tiffany’s box. Are they the Tiffany’s of lingerie?? Me being so cheap that I wait until Target bras go on sale, I wouldn’t know as I sure have never bought anything from them.
4. Is that even lingerie? If it is, it doesn’t look very supportive. And for that price you ought to be able to do a double back layout and land on a pony jumping off a diving board without risking a nip-slip. (Ooooh I haven’t seen Wild Hearts in YEARS. I wonder if I’d still love it as much without the preteen hormones coursing through my veins?)
5. Diving board. It looks like a swimsuit. But who wears sweat bands with a bikini? Probably makes more sense than wearing sweat bands with lingerie. And is that a leather purse? Except it’s like tucked under her arm, even though it has a strap. Who carries a purse like that?! I would definitely not take a leather purse to a pool. I think the purse has more fabric than the swimsuit. I wonder if it costs more?
6. FOCUS CHARLOTTE. Ribs. Hip bones. They are a little jarring, not going to lie.
7. But would I worry about her if I saw her in real life? Probably not as women carry weight in lots of different ways and heck, if I raise my arms you can see my ribs too and I’m firmly smack dab in the middle of the BMI “normal” category.
8. Did I just compare a mannequin to a real woman? Isn’t that the cardinal sin of mannequins – that they’re clearly not meant to represent real women??
9. You know what would be cool? If mannequins actually did represent real women. But, like, all of us. I think I would be less bothered by this one if she was shoulder-to-fake-shoulder with a mannequin with athletic thighs, one with a big butt and hips, one with tiny tatas, one who carries weight around her waist and, oh yes, a pregnant mannequin. Want me to spend beaucoup bucks on a bra? Show me how it handles droopy bits. Mannequins, represent!
10. “No taxation without representation” just took on a whole new – and way cooler – meaning. It would be awesome if we got a break on sales tax if stores weren’t able to show us what the product would like on someone similar to us.
After a passerby tweeted the picture with the caption “How does #LaPerla think ribs on a mannequin is ok?!” and hashtag #notbuyingit, Lingerie juggernaut La Perla yanked the mannequin from their stores. (Probably not literally although that amuses me to imagine it – her arm would totally fall right off. I know that since my sons did that to a mannequin in JC Penney’s once. We discovered they’re held together with industrial magnets. That you can then use to put them back together in a variety of disturbing-yet-hilarious ways. Not that we did that. Yes we did.)
They quickly issued a statement saying, “The mannequin photographed has been removed from the store and will not be used again by any La Perla boutique. We are in the process of redesigning all La Perla stores with a new concept image and the mannequins that are currently displayed in our US stores will no longer be used. We appreciate and value everyone’s comments, thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
The internet, predictably, went nuts. Some people applauded La Perla’s quick response to the initial outcry, which was quickly followed by a backlash of people claiming it was another example of “skinny shaming” by implying that women with visible rib and hip bones are ugly or sick.
I think this is a perfect example of how convoluted the conversation about weight, eating disorders, thinness, public perception and marketing has gotten. My initial reaction was whoa. But do I think it’s right they pulled the mannequin? I don’t know, honestly. If it was the right choice then stores should be pulling all their mannequins since they’re basically all the same size as this one. And yet by making it more anatomically correct, was La Perla making it less politically correct? Perhaps a lack of visible features – how many mannequins don’t have heads? – gives them a pass on body image standards. But does it? I myself am totally capable of comparing myself to a feature-less mannequin and then feeling badly about my own body because of it. (I’m not proud of it but there it is.) But I do that with real-life women too so perhaps I should just own those as my own issues and not project them onto a blank canvas used to sell clothes I’d never buy anyhow.
Speaking of clothes, how come he didn’t get her feet in the picture? I’m dying to see the shoes they put with that outfit.
What’s your opinion of this mannequin – is it setting a bad standard or just showing a wider variety of body types? Was La Perla right to have pulled it or should they have left it? Added more differently-typed mannequins alongside it? And WHAT is that purse thingy??
Perhaps…
…this mannequin was created by a would-be artist who only wants to painstakingly express his artistic self but gets fired for taking too much time AND deviating from the set mannequin cookie-cutter pattern…
…after which he sees “his” mannequin in the boutique window and falls asleep leaning against the window after staring at this mannequin all night and in the morning is mistaken for a vagrant but saves the owner of the store from certain death and then gets hired as a glorified window dresser and then falls in love with the mannequin who then comes to life and loves him back in a kind of romantic comedy that Roger Ebert would award a half star to and deeming it to be “Dead” and “full of clichés” while together with Siskel give it two thumbs down, while Leonard Maltin calls it “rock bottom-fare , dispiriting for anyone who remembers what movie comedy should be” AND Rita Kemply of The Washington Post will insist that it was a film “made by, for, and about dummies” (She what she did there? Mannequin equated with Dummy?) and all the while it does wonderfully at the box office making 42 million on a six million dollar budget and goes on to become a cult classic with a cool main title tune entitled “NOTHING’S GONNA STOP US NOW” by Starship that was nominated for an Academy award.
Or not.
BWAHAHAHA, nice Darwin!
Also; I just bought ‘Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now” on iTunes. 🙂
Thank-you so much for the “BWAHAHAHA” Amy D.!
And last night I found the original music video for ‘NOTHING’S GONNA STOP US NOW” by Starship on youtube…(I will buy it as well!)
…so I’m right there with you!
There’s a part of me that’s glad there’s a backlash against the super-skinny trend. A bitter part of me. One I’m not particularly proud of, and, when I dare to examine it closely, makes me hang my feminist head in shame.
It’s a part of me that wants to scream at anyone who rails about “skinny-shaming” because, lets’s face it; even in the current environment, skinny folks have it A LOT easier than those of us who are overweight.
However…
I hate to see or hear of ANYONE being shamed for their physical appearance. I hate that women’s (and, more and more, men’s) bodies are considered public property and fair game, something we feel free to have and express opinions on. It’s none of our business. Unless we see someone doing themselves or others harm. And I don’t mean “I’m concerned about your being so fat at me that I’m going to laugh and point until you go home and curl up on your bed and cry so I don’t have to look at your fatness” fake concern. Nor the “Eat a sandwich, b***h” fake concern.
I think we should have diversity represented, in all its forms.
I recently saw an ad for a kid’s clothing store that featured a little girl with Downs’Syndrome. She was wearing one of their bathing suits, and they’d dressed her up like a mermaid. She had the biggest smile, and it was the cutest ad ever! I would absolutely buy from them!
As you say Charlotte, show us how the clothes will work on real people, and we will spend our money.
So, I’m with you: keep the mannequin. And put her next to her thicker and equally fabulous friend. And maybe another gal whose “skin” is a different color.
Can I respectfully disagree with part of your reply? When you said that skinny folks have it A LOT easier than those who are overweight…well, I disagree. I am a skinny girl…now. 80 pounds ago, I wasn’t. I had a whole different set of troubles then. But now that I’ve lost the weight, I still have troubles. And they are weight troubles, just different kinds. Like you said, it is nobody’s business and nobody should be fat-shamed, skinny-shamed, or fit-shamed. But it still happens. It’s shameFUL. I feel uncomfortable when people comment about my body. People feel the need to tell me what I “should” be eating. That I need to eat MORE. I sometimes feel like I still don’t look good enough. So no…skinny folks really don’t have it any easier. We just have it different.
And that mannequin made me uncomfortable as well. Like: is SHE what I should be aiming for?! Why is this what girls are being subjected to? Why isn’t this mannequin next to another with a different body type (just as you stated)? I love your example of the little girl in the Mermaid outfit. This type of diversity is what should be celebrated and exemplified. I am saddened that more retailers do not do this. Maybe this is the start?
I agree with your comment, but not with the statement that “skinny people have it easier.” I am 5’4 and weigh 97lbs and it is not easier for me. People constantly ask me how I am so skinny, but honestly there is nothing I can do about it. I have tried eating myself sick and I did not gain any weight, just stomach pain and discomfort
My first thought was, they pulled ALL of them because ONE person complained? How many times does that happen. The entire prom gets changed because one kid is “offended”, a business gets harassed to the point of closing because the owner believes something somebody else thinks is offensive, the graduation venue was changed from a huge indoor hall to a tiny little room (where each student was limited to TWO guests) all because the huge room was a “mega-church” hall that had a cross up on the wall and ONE, yup ONE student’s parents made a fuss. AAAARRRRRGGGGG. Honestly, if a mannequin is causing you that much angst – you truly need to get a real life. Live and let live. Stop worrying about what others are doing/saying/eating/playing/etc etc etc and clean up your own back yard. Sheesh.
Rant over. (ok, probably not over, but suspended for this session… lol)
I assumed the “purse” was a leather holder of some cool workout accessory. actually LIKE this mannequin. She even has that little “under the belly button pooch” turning her into a very REAL body type. (skinny as a stick, but still has a “flaw” that I’ll bet as soon as the store closes at night and all the lights turn off, she dashes to the mirror to check out. Is it smaller yet?????) Women. Sigh.
Yeah, I think it’s the anatomical-correctness that bugs me about this. If you want to do that and have super skinny mannequins, fine, but I agree, I think in that case the store should show a variety of different sized and shaped ones. Normal mannequins don’t really bother me since they’re so far removed from an actual human. In fact I don’t think I ever even notice them, I’m way too busy looking at the pretty colors. The only exception is that last month I noticed in the Macy’s window that all their mannequins had these weird flippers for hands. That freaked me out more than this one!
I have to agree with what you said- MOST mannequins are just as skinny as this but without the protruding ribs. I mean, whenever you look at the BACK of a mannequin, the shirt/pants/whatever are always pinned tight so it actually fits… so in other words, the clothes they are selling don’t actually fit the mannequin anyway!
I’m conflicted. I like it that the model is a more realistic representation of what an actual body would look like if it was that thin. Those bones would definitely stick out like that. Smoothed-out super-skinny mannequins really, really bother me. As do super-skinny models whose protruding bones are airbrushed out. Because no one can have that level of thinness, thigh-gap, pencil arms, etc without having the bony parts visible. That said, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the bony parts, if that’s how you are. I think it’s time for accuracy in advertising. They should use mannequins that are real representations of women’s bodies – skinny with bones and not-so-skinny with the round parts in the right places. That would give our girls a fighting chance to accept their bodies as the wonderful beautiful, unique miracles that they are.
I think it would be great to have this mannequin alongside other mannequins of other body types. Inherently, I don’t think there is anything wrong with this, and some “real” women do look like this (I’m fascinated by what imaginary women must look like.) that said, this is the norm for mannequin sizes, so it’s not like it’s pushing any boundaries. I’d love to see this alongside all kinds of other anatomically correct mannequins – short, tall, big chest, small chest, wider hips, narrower hips, etc.
As a side note, I hate that they pin clothes displayed on mannequins!!! So deceiving!!
Gee, I must be getting immune to this sort of thing. The ribs and hip bones look fine to me. I see women that look like that. My reaction was that the bathing suit top looks really cheap for a high end store and the arm bands are odd and I hope that isn’t a trend.
I think the store has to react fast when the public voices an opinion either to stay the course and defend or retreat. I would have retreated as well.
It is getting so we don’t know what people actually look like any more. You have to watch foreign movies to get any kind of a clue.
My question is who can afford this stuff?
I figure if they’re having plus size mannequins, why not have thin mannequins and have a little bit of every type. I would love to see a mannequin of my type/height in a window and see how something would actually fit me.
Oddly enough the bellybutton bothers me more than anything else. The mannequin does look very thin, but there are people who are that thin so it doesn’t matter to me. It’s just a mannequin.
I’m just too tired too care, honestly. If I was outraged at everything everyone was outraged at, that’s all I would get done of a day. so, I guess, meh. Whatevs. Someone else can fight this battle.
I’d love to see this anatomically correct mannequin alongside a passel of differently-shaped, but equally anatomically correct mannequin sisters. The human body comes in so many different shapes, sizes, and colors. The variety is beautiful. Why not mimic the spectrum with department store mannequins wearing expensive lingerie and celebrate the beauty of the variety in the female form?
I dunno, I don’t think the supper skinny look makes any sot of clothing look all that great either on a display or real person. I know almost nothing about fasion but I always thought clothing alway looked best when it fits the figure. Not when it’s draped over the physique like tinsel on a Christmas tree.
I’ll go with too skinny; but not because it has too little fat.
“Nurse, a sammich and a barbell – STAT!”
I CANNOT believe they are even still around!!!
(((wraggles cane)))
Honestly, I don’t even notice the mannequins. And I’m certainly not going to trust ‘how it looks on the mannequin’, even if it is a body type similar to mine. I’m going to try that shizz on. Because I have parts that squish, and a mannequin does not. All I see mannequins are is a way to better display the features of the clothes.
So I guess the answer is, I don’t care what they look like.
I kinda like the fact that there are different looking mannequins and I think different shapes would be helpful for someone to see their figure wearing something they were thinking of purchasing.
Yep; good points, all. Some women DO have this body type, naturally and without going to destructive extremes. However…would a mannequin that accurately represented, say, Lane Bryant’s typical customer be called out as such? The mannequins that particular store uses in its displays are MUCH smaller than its customers; i.e., their mannequins look to be an image of a 5’8″, 155 pound woman who would wear a size 8 or 10 in a standard women’s clothing store. LB’s smallest size was far, far too large on me, when, as a 5’4″ woman, I weighed 195-205 lbs — their smallest size is probably equivalent to a generous 18 (I wore a 16/18 in regular stores at the time). And no one gets to be a size 18 without going to destructive extremes.
I like that even though she is skinny, her belly is not flat. Getting a flat belly in 15 days is impossible, but getting a flat belly at all might be a pipe dream as well.
Although there are clearly arguments that having protruding bones on a mannequin promotes an unhealthy lifestyle and encourages girls to be underweight, I bet that if the mannequin had been “plus size” carrying large amounts of extra fat around the middle there would have been no back lash at all. Modern society tells overweight people to love their bodies whilst reminding us its unhealthy to be underweight, despite the serious increased risk of diabetes from carrying weight around your stomach not to mention the other health implications of obesity. It would be nice if we could just see healthy mannequins which might legitimately have a normal BMI!
Society needs to stop telling people to push for either extreme and remind us that much as body confidence and loving yourself is important its health which should be the priority!