Wapsi Square Forum

Castela seems intent on completely disrupting a major American industry. Good for her!

http://wapsisquare.com/comic/as-is/

If I understand it correctly, anorexia did not exists until a generation of girls that had grown up with 'Barbie' came of age. Frankly, I prefer a woman with enough butt to grab.

Anorexia started with Twiggy.

And no I'm not going to tell you who Twiggy was, you have the Internet, learn how to use it.

Both were contributing factors, but when Mattel introduced Barbie in 1959, Ms. Hornby was just 10 years old.

The term anorexia nervosa dates to 1873 but descriptions of similar conditions go much further back than that.

In the 1920's, flappers bound their breasts, to look "flat".

In the Victorian 1800's, corsets were all the rage, and known poisons were uses cosmetically to give women white skin and dilated eyes.

Around the time of the US Civil war, no Southern lady of status would would have gone without having her nipples pierced.

In Greco-Roman times, marble statues depicted the then current ideal form of both man and woman.

This isn't a modern thing. It's been going on, since we could make art above and beyond stick drawings. When written language began, we waxed lyrical about what a woman SHOULD look like, at least according to the author.

And, each generation has it's own "look" to chase. Twenty years ago, you wouldn't have seen women with a buzz cut on one side of their head, or men with buns. Now, both are standard fare. In 10 years, people will talk about it the way we do 1990's mullets.

Barbie didn't start this, nor did Twiggy, or Mata Hari, for that matter.

Seems like Castela rolled a natural 20 for "you're not foolin' me!"

Oh great, now Atsali's going to be thinking "There's something wrong with my butt???"

It is horrible how society objectifies women's bodies especially the rear. And i was NOT looking over my shoulder at one when i walked into a concrete pillar no matter what my wife says.

Paul, with all due respect for an excellent comic strip, you really dropped the ball this time. The title of today's strip should have been "Your Butt"


Seriously though, the little stinkweed is right--on so many levels.

I think Atsali should be pleased that Castela's watching her back.

And Nadette seems to be very appreciative of Atsali's hindquarters, even having eyed them like few others have. I don't think that Atsali has much to fret about in that regard.

Catawampus wrote:And Nadette seems to be very appreciative of Atsali's hindquarters, even having eyed them like few others have. I don't think that Atsali has much to fret about in that regard.

"is ded"

Sgt. Howard wrote:If I understand it correctly, anorexia did not exists until a generation of girls that had grown up with 'Barbie' came of age. Frankly, I prefer a woman with enough butt to grab.

Actually it was Twiggy back in the 60's and early 70'2 that made the fashion industry so, there is no polite way to say it, their ideal girl/woman was a twelve year old boy. No bust, no butt, weight no more that 95 pounds. That was taken up as the perfect ideal by the media, no it is everywhere. women eat, and those who are not comfortable with their bodies either eat so little a bird eats more, or they run off and vomit it up. Weight should be based on height and activity, not some drug addicts ideal vision.

jeffepp wrote:Around the time of the US Civil war, no Southern lady of status would would have gone without having her nipples pierced.

Source, please?

I know wet nursing was much in demand for m'lady need not debase herself with such animalistic activities, etc, etc. And heavens, that she might turn something less than pale for having been out in the sun! Horrors! One might suspect that she actually.... worked.... for a living! And we can't have that, now, can we?

I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.

Vitrbjorn wrote:Actually it was Twiggy back in the 60's and early 70'2 that made the fashion industry so, there is no polite way to say it, their ideal girl/woman was a twelve year old boy. No bust, no butt, weight no more that 95 pounds. That was taken up as the perfect ideal by the media, no it is everywhere. women eat, and those who are not comfortable with their bodies either eat so little a bird eats more, or they run off and vomit it up. Weight should be based on height and activity, not some drug addicts ideal vision.

From my own research into the whole thing (I did a moderately in-depth study of body images and ideals and such years ago), Twiggy set part of the fashion industry on a somewhat vague course towards boyish looks, which really set in in the 1980's. Things didn't get really bad until Kate Moss became part of a super-influential ad campaign in the 1990's, though, at which point the "wasting away from drug abuse" look became the Next Big Thing. That was a bit too extreme, though, and died out relatively quickly (probably at least partly due to too many of the models dying off as well, which tends to attract a bit of unfriendly scrutiny). Now it's back to the thin, but not diseased, look as being ideal. Which is still a problem due to the huge amount of pressure that the fashion industry places on girls to look that thin, but it is at least an improvement and shows that progress can be made.

The fashion industry does tend to be very much about trends, which come and go at the drop of an overpriced overdesigned hat. It's also not quite the universal hive mind that a lot of people seem to assume, what with a good bit of regional variety (the androgynous look was more of an American industry trend, for example). So there is the potential for some rapid and drastic changes to sweep through.

Perhaps the Next Big Thing will be busty well-toned Latino gals less than five feet tall. . .

GlytchMeister wrote:I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.

There are two types of clothing designers: those who design clothing (which is supposed to be worn), and those who design "art" (which is supposed to be looked at while maybe being displayed on a person). The latter don't appreciate having some person's body distorting the beauty of their creations, and so try to find bodies to best fit their product rather than make products to best fit the available bodies.

GlytchMeister wrote:I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.

I am convinced that the industry is run by Gay Men who fixate on adolescent boys in drag... which is what a lot of high-end models look like. Did you know that the majority of skinny models have so little body fat and blood count that they stop menstruation?

If I'm ever gonna say/think "damn, look at the rack on that one," I'd prefer it to be in regards to her breasts, and not her ribs.

Hey, some women are just put together tall and skinny like that. Others are fun-sized and curvy.

I don't mind that. What I'm not happy about is the demonization of all body types other than "stick-figure" and the fixation the fashion industry has on a single body type.

I'd be just as unhappy if fashion was fixated specifically on rotund women no taller than 5'3". It would still encourage women to aspire to a specific body type other than their own and make them view any other body shape as negative.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

If an article of clothing is designed specifically as art, fine. Whatever. Drape it over a pole. That would draw attention to the piece of art itself and not give people the idea that their body is not put together right.

If you want it to be worn, make it wearable by several different body shapes. You'll sell more.