in think it started because if you have a fairly undefined body inside an outfit, then the outfit stands out. however, it became industry standard, then accepted social standard and just spiralled out of control.
they probably would make more money if they designed bigger sizes but that would undercut the profits of the diet product market :eyeroll:
2007-09-04 21:34:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by bluestareyed 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There has been a move towards that in recent years, but I get the impression that the women's fashion industry, especially "high fashion" has gotten into a self-perpetuating rut with ultra-thin models who look like they're either hardcore junkies or that they've just been liberated from a concentration camp. I don't think any of the main houses of fashion want to be the first to take the risk and break away from it. After all, what's fashion, if it's not about following trends?
2007-09-04 14:55:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
It's not likely, but the only reason I can think of that makes sense is that fabric costs money. Unless some haute coture designer makes a dress with a super-long and unneccesary train (I'm looking at *you*, designer of Keira Knightly's Vogue dress (what? It was at the hairdresser's)), smaller sizes use less fabric than larger sizes, and therefore cost less to produce with the same materials.
Why tiny styles don't translate so well into average sizes, I don't know.
To the person who gave me a thumbs down: I said that would make sense. I didn't say it was likely.
2007-09-04 15:11:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Cine 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think this question goes back to as far as when fashion started. I agree with you. You could get my money quicker if I can see what the style would look like on a woman my size and I am not fat. Besides, I think when you have more meat on your bones it looks better.
2007-09-04 14:57:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by mi4mi728 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
How about because most of the biggest fashion designers are gay men, and the only women they find attractive are women who look like teenage boys. Todays teenage girls are not slim little things, so much on average.
2007-09-04 16:33:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by poet1b 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why is it that men are behaving more like women regarding appearance and grooming? It's all about marketing. Someone paid a lot of money to find out what gets people's attention. That's how advertising works. You don't catch catfish without bait. Good luck figuring that out.
2007-09-04 14:57:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jack 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
'Wouldn't they make more money if it was based on the sizes of real woman?'
Nah, disposable fashion (trends) are marketed to teenagers and young women still in their 20's (who are usually thinner than mature women). This stuff is cheap, and the girls want to look like the model in the picture. They drop tons of money trying to achieve this.
2007-09-04 16:16:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Good question! In fact, one particular designer, Christian Lacroix, lost almost $10 mil on his Victorian-style line in the 80's. Women were more interested in buying comfortable, well-fitting, and understated formal wear. Meanwhile, he was pushing dresses studded with huge fake flowers and bows.
2007-09-04 15:36:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rio Madeira 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
colleges are in seek of faculty toddlers which will: a million. cause them to seem stable 2. be generous alumni They care no longer something approximately intelligence for its own sake - that's what MENSA is for. the two between the above require universal overall performance, no longer intelligence.
2016-12-12 18:28:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am informed that the clothes hang better and better generally on thinner women.
I would have no empirical support for that opinion.
Men, usually, prefer women of average build, for their frame and height. That is empirically supported, though women buy clothes for themselves, I am told.
2007-09-04 16:20:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋